I am fine with that as well. Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw.li...@gmail.com> 于 2025年1月11日周六 上午7:26写道：
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:49:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 04:30:20PM +0900, Zhenyu Wang wrote: > > >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:25:09AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert > wrote: > > >> > Note: zhen...@linux.intel.com's address bounces: > > >> > > > >> > > >> yeah, I've left Intel so can't use that box any more, looks Rodrigo > hasn't > > >> queue up my address change patch yet. Rodrigo? > > > > > > pushed to drm-intel-next now, although I was assuming this to come > > > on a gvt pull request... > > > > > > what about this patch here? coming in a PR or should I take this > > > directly at drm-intel-next as well? > > > > AFAICT the last gvt-next pull request was more than two years ago and > > gvt-fixes slightly less than one year ago. > > > > There's a single cleanup commit in gvt-next applied two years ago for > > which there hasn't been a pull request. > > > > The GVT github page [1] says, "This repository has been archived by the > > owner on Oct 3, 2024. It is now read-only." The intel-gvt-dev mailing > > list [2] appears to be mostly spam. > > > > Seems to me something like this would be appropriate: > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index 1c3eab5d2b1a..161206fdaf05 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -11557,11 +11557,10 @@ F: drivers/gpio/gpio-tangier.h > > INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization) > > M: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw.li...@gmail.com> > > M: Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.li...@gmail.com> > > -L: intel-gvt-...@lists.freedesktop.org > > L: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > -S: Supported > > +S: Maintained > > W: https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/wiki > > -T: git https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git > > +T: git https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel.git > > F: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/ > > > > Looks fine with me. > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw.li...@gmail.com> > > > INTEL HID EVENT DRIVER > > > > But I don't think it would be far from the truth to have "S: Odd Fixes" > > either. And the extreme would be to just remove the whole maintainers > > entry and have it fall back to the i915 entry. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > When I left Intel, I have raised similar question to manager or related > people to see their ideas on how to keep GVT-g maintenance work for > upstream, > but I didn't get real answers before my last day at Intel...So still cc > some > intel gvt related people to double confirm. > > For me, it's fine to remove the maintainer entry maybe only keep as > reviewer? > > Thanks to raise up this issue, Jani! >
