[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070315184954.d3e44243.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:49:54 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haver@...t.ibm.com,
hch@...radead.org, dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/22 take 3] UBI: EBA unit
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:29:51 -0500 Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:24:10PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:07:03 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There's way too much code here to expect it to get decently reviewed, alas.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > /me repeats wish that Not Everything Should Be Sent to lkml. :(
>
> Just curious, but where would you suggest this be sent to for review then?
Valid question. I should have chosen some other more appropriate
patch to make that comment.
I don't see a better list for UBI patches, so lkml is OK IMO.
Here is a summary of my thinking on Linux-related mailing lists.
1. Bug reports can go to lkml or focused mailing lists.
2. Development (like patches) should go to focused mailing lists
if there is such a list and they have enough usage.
Development areas that qualify for this IMO are:
- ACPI
- ATA
- file systems
- frame buffer
- ieee1394
- MM/VM
- multimedia
- networking
- PCI
- power management, suspend/resume
- SCSI
- sound
- USB
- virtualization
(not that I expect anything close to concensus on this)
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists