linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12

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]

Message-Id: <1178307086.7997.75.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date:	Fri, 04 May 2007 12:31:26 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 14:09 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:38 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is kind of a lot of patches all at once .. Have you release any of
> > > > these patch sets prior to this release ?
> > >
> > > Like the -v12 suggests, this is the 12th posting of this patch set.
> > > Some is the same, some has changed.
> >
> > I can find one prior release with this subject (-v11) , what was the
> > subject prior to that release? It's not a hard rule, but usually >15
> > patches is too many (check Documentation/SubmittingPatches under
> > references).. You might want to consider submitting a URL instead.
> 
> Previous subjects were like:
> [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7)
> 
> A URL doesn't allow for true discussion about a particular patch
> unless the reviewer takes the initiative to create a new thread to
> discuss the Nth patch it a patchset; whereby taking on the burden of a
> structured subject and so on.  It would get out of control on a large
> patchset that actually got a lot of simultaneous feedback... reviewers
> don't have a forum to talk about each individual change without
> stepping on each others' toes.

True ..

> > I think it's a benefit to release less since a developer (like myself)
> > might know very little about "Swap over Networked storage", but if you
> > submit 10 patches that developer might still review it, 40 patches they
> > likely wouldn't review it.
> 
> The _suggestions_ in Documentation/SubmittingPatches are nice and all
> but the quantity of patches shouldn't _really_ matter.

I guess I take the documentation more seriously than your do. It's
clearly not mandatory, but for my reviewing I appreciate less then 15
sets of "logical changes".

Daniel

-
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/