linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v21 001/100] eclone (1/11): Factor out code to allocate pidmap page

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: <20100502001427.GH2671@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org>
Date:	Sat, 1 May 2010 20:14:27 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	orenl@...columbia.edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, serue@...ibm.com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, xemul@...nvz.org, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 001/100] eclone (1/11): Factor out code to allocate
	pidmap page

On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 03:10:22PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
>NO WAY, there is no way in the world you should post 100 patches
>at a time to any mailing list, especially those at vger.kernel.org
>that have thousands upon thousands of subscribers.
>
>Post only small, well contained, sets of patches at a time.  At most
>10 or so in one go.
>
>Do you realize how much mail traffic you generate by posting so many
>patches at one time, and how unlikely it is for anyone to actually
>sift through and review your patches after you've spammed them by
>posting so many at one time?
>
>A second infraction and I will have no choice but to block you at the
>SMTP level at vger.kernel.org so please do not do it again.

So I really agree with everything you said here, but I do wonder why you haven't
sent a similar rant about the often 100+ patchsets for the -stable series.  We  
are supposed to review those and follow up on them to be sure they're suitable  
for a stable release.

Or the 100+ emails about regressions from version to version.  Etc, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it does seem a bit odd that you choose to reply
to this one, and not the other umpteen cases I often see.  Maybe it isn't about 
the size or volume of the emails, and more about the fact that it's 100 patches 
to implement _one_ thing?  If so, then I don't really think it's about list
traffic at all...

josh
--
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/