linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] support "task_isolation" mode for nohz

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 04:33:02 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] support "task_isolation" mode for nohz_full

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 08:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >Can you *please* start a new thread with each posting?
> >
> >This is absolutely unmanageable.
> 
> I've been explicitly threading the multiple patch series on purpose
> due to this text in "git help send-email":
> 
>        --in-reply-to=<identifier>
>               Make the first mail (or all the mails with --no-thread) appear
>               as a reply to the given Message-Id, which avoids breaking
>               threads to provide a new patch series. The second and subsequent
>               emails will be sent as replies according to the
>               --[no]-chain-reply-to setting.
> 
>               So for example when --thread and --no-chain-reply-to are
>               specified, the second and subsequent patches will be replies to
>               the first one like in the illustration below where [PATCH v2
>               0/3] is in reply to [PATCH 0/2]:
> 
>               [PATCH 0/2] Here is what I did...
>                 [PATCH 1/2] Clean up and tests
>                 [PATCH 2/2] Implementation
>                 [PATCH v2 0/3] Here is a reroll
>                   [PATCH v2 1/3] Clean up
>                   [PATCH v2 2/3] New tests
>                   [PATCH v2 3/3] Implementation
> 
> It sounds like this is exactly the behavior you are objecting
> to.  It's all one to me because I am not seeing these emails
> come up in some hugely nested fashion, but just viewing the
> responses that I haven't yet triaged away.

I personally (and I think this is the general LKML behaviour) use in-reply-to
when I post a single patch that is a fix for a bug, or a small enhancement,
discussed on some thread. It works well as it fits the conversation inline.

But for anything that requires significant changes, namely a patchset,
and that includes a new version of such patchset, it's usually better
to create a new thread. Otherwise the thread becomes an infinite mess and it
eventually expands further the mail client columns.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/