[Intel-gfx] i915 and GTV-g maintenance, workflows and CI

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 
> We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
> more, and address some of the current shortcomings and issues in the
> process and GVT-g CI.
> 
> This started off internally as a random list of items, I'm including
> some of the current status as well. Please comment, as some of the stuff
> here are just my opinions.
> 
> * How do we ensure GVT-g patches get the same kind of pre-merge CI
>   coverage as we have for other i915 code? Could we at least make CI run
>   tests on GVT-g pull requests before merging to drm-intel trees?
> 
>   => Work in progress to set up GVT-g CI.

Personally I don't think gvt needs to pass drm-intel CI. If GVT folks want
to do that then it's fine, but otherwise I'm leaning towards treating gvt
like a sub-driver, with its own flavour of testing and review standards.

Of course anything touching shared code (i.e. outside of the gvt/ subdir),
or code which can't be disabled with Kconfig needs to follow our
established review&testing procedures. So submission to intel-gfx, CI by
patchwork, review per our standards.

> * How do we handle fixes to GVT-g code? Do all fixes need to go via the
>   GVT-g mailing lists and review? We're bound to get GVT-g patches on
>   intel-gfx mailing list too. There's confusion already [1]. Mostly the
>   GVT-g changes come from GVT-g maintainers as pull requests.
> 
>   [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/14000/

Atm the gvt mailing list is closed, and there's no maintainer entry for it
either. I think Zhenyu just needs to hang out here on intel-gfx to catch
these, and then pick any gvt/ fixes up himself.

> * GVT-g related changes to i915 proper must be reviewed on intel-gfx
>   mailing list, and must either be applied to drm-intel directly, or get
>   an ack to be merged via GVT-g tree and pull requests.

Ack.

> * GVT-g needs to start annotating fixes with the Fixes: tags, preferably
>   also cc: stable when we get that far, so our fixes plumbing can figure
>   out which commits to backport.
> 
>   => GVT-g maintainers will take care of this.

Either that, or they need to send -fixes pull requests your way. I think
we could try out either approach, but yes in the end gvt maintainers need
to own this. We (i915 team here) won't take care of that.

> * Should GVT-g have a MAINTAINERS entry of its own?
> 
>   => https://github.com/01org/gvt-linux/commit/41161c9e9e50a5bad98a0e74ad0878c352bdea40
> 
> 	+INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization)
> 	+M:      Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw at linux.intel.com>
> 	+M:      Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang at intel.com>
> 	+L:      igvt-g-dev at lists.01.org

Need to make sure igvt-g-dev is open to non-subscribers first. Otherwise
ack.

> 	+L:      intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> 	+W:      https://01.org/igvt-g
> 	+T:      git https://github.com/01org/gvt-linux.git
> 	+S:      Supported
> 	+F:      drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/
> 
>   I think we'll want to keep intel-gfx there, but mostly I think it's
>   fine for the usual GVT-g development to happen on igvt-g-dev only.

+1

> * igvt-g-dev at lists.01.org needs to start accepting mails from
>   non-subscribers.
> 
>   => Work in progress.

Definitely ;-)

> * GVT-g needs to start paying more attention to compiler and sparse
>   warnings.
> 
>   => GVT-G maintainers will take care of this.
> 
> * GVT-g could use some overview documentation under Documentation/gpu.

Hm, should we have a TODO file in gvt for some of the issues raised? Otoh
most things are fairly small issues, so should all be fixable before 4.10
freeze.

> * GVT-g bug management. Do you have something set up already? Would be
>   great to be able to use https://bugs.freedesktop.org so we could
>   reassign between i915 and GVT-g.

+1.

> What did I forget/overlook?

Nothing else crosses my mind, but I'm sure we'll discover more ;-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch