On 3/12/19 9:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 12.03.19 at 09:48, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 12/03/2019 09:19, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> At the moment Xen [1] already supports some virtual multimedia >>> features [2] such as virtual display, sound. It supports keyboards, >>> pointers and multi-touch devices all allowing Xen to be used in >>> automotive appliances, In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) systems >>> and many more. >>> >>> Frontend implementation is available at [3] and the corresponding >>> backend at [4]. These are work in progress, but frontend already >>> passes v4l2-compliance test for V4L2 drivers. libxl preliminary >>> changes are available at [5]. >>> >>> This work adds a new Xen para-virtualized protocol for a virtual >>> camera device which extends multimedia capabilities of Xen even >>> farther: video conferencing, IVI, high definition maps etc. >>> >>> The initial goal is to support most needed functionality with the >>> final idea to make it possible to extend the protocol if need be: >>> >>> 1. Provide means for base virtual device configuration: >>> - pixel formats >>> - resolutions >>> - frame rates >>> 2. Support basic camera controls: >>> - contrast >>> - brightness >>> - hue >>> - saturation >>> 3. Support streaming control >> >> So since the first post in July 2018 there has been no reaction from >> Konrad to this interface. I guess he has plenty of other things to do. > > Having gone through all the versions' threads (just their titles) I can't > find any explicit ping to him. Yes, five versions should have been > enough to draw attention, but then again this may have indicated to > him that things are still too much in flux. > >> Maybe it would be a good idea to add someone else as a maintainer for >> the "PUBLIC I/O INTERFACES AND PV DRIVERS DESIGNS" section in >> MAINTAINERS to avoid such stalls in the future? > > Well, iirc he had volunteered himself for that role, so I guess the > preferred action in such a case would be for him to also step back if > his other duties no longer permit him fulfilling the maintainer role here. > Without the specific MAINTAINERS entry, as in the old days, THE > REST would assume responsibility again, which personally I'd prefer > over adding a second individual to the section. Unless someone else > (like you) volunteered again.
The "unless" between "adding a second individual to the section" and "someone else... volunteered again" indicates that they're in contrast somehow; but I don't understand what contrast you mean. We certainly can't *assign* anyone to that responsibility, so the only way someone would get their name down there is to volunteer. Or are you making a distinction between "stepping up because they thought it needed to be done" vs "stepping up because they think it's an interesting thing to do and are jumping at the opportunity"? I generally think having one or two people *specifically* responsible for things is better than having a reasonably large group of people (THE REST) responsible for a reasonably large number of things. So while I certainly think it makes sense to have it revert to THE REST in the case that nobody steps up, I think it would be better if someone actually did step up. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
