On 10/2/20 8:41 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 02/10/2020 16:59, Tom Rix: >> On 10/1/20 2:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 01/10/2020 23:22, Chautru, Nicolas: >>>> From: t...@redhat.com <t...@redhat.com> >>>>> From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> Copied from the Linux kernel MAINTAINERS file. >>>>> A Reviewer is designated person who wishes to review changes in areas of >>>>> interest. >>>>> >>>>> Added self as Reviewer for baseband. >>>>> >>>>> I am a Linux kernel Reviewer for the fpga n3000/vista creek which has >>>>> several bitstream based baseband devices. So I want to help out here as >>>>> well. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> >>>> Thanks for the help. >>>> Note that they are a few other BBDEV patches in flight for 20.11 on top of >>>> the acc100 PMD that you may want to be aware of. >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=&submitter=chautru&state=&q=&archive=&delegate= >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> >>> [...] >>>>> Baseband API - EXPERIMENTAL >>>>> M: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> >>>>> +R: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> >>> I don't understand the need of differenciating maintainer and reviewer. >>> If you are trusted enough, why not just being co-maintainer? >>> >> I want to help out with the reviews, the reviewer type makes clear this >> level of commitment. >> >> Maintainer is the next, higher level of commitment. >> >> >> Trust wise, this would allow the maintainer verify the reviewer does have >> the bandwidth to be responsive >> >> and effective before committing to sharing responsibility. > Sorry I fail to understand. > My understanding is that you want to be Cc > but not committing for responsibility. > Would it be the same if you create a mail filter on your side? > > This model is really not clear to me so I'm reluctant to add > such new category until I understand the benefit. > That's fine, i will change the patch and use the existing process.
Tom
