linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] virtio_balloon: coding style fixes

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <20150115185018.GA31068@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:50:18 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_balloon: coding style fixes

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:13:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 15-01-15 15:44:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:06:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 15-01-15 13:39:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Most of our code has
> > > > struct foo {
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > Fix two instances where balloon is inconsistent.
> > > 
> > > I hate to complain but is it really necessary to post such patches to
> > > linux-api?
> > 
> > Well it's human to err, so it seems wise to copy parties
> > interested in the ABI/API whenever we are changing files under include/uapi.
> > Whitespace changes should mostly be safe, but it's not unknown
> > e.g. to include unrelated changes in the same commit by mistake.
> > 
> > > I thought the list was primarily for API related discussions.
> > 
> > Basically this line in MAINTAINERS
> > 
> > ABI/API
> > L:      linux-api@...r.kernel.org
> > F:      Documentation/ABI/
> > F:      include/linux/syscalls.h
> > F:      include/uapi/
> > F:      kernel/sys_ni.c
> > 
> > normally means "send all patches affecting files under include/uapi/ to
> > this list", does it not?
> 
> Well, this should always be taken as a hint not a hard rule. So if there
> is a change which is adding/removing or changing signature then sure but
> not everything falls into that category.

At least for code I maintain, I really wish people would just Cc me in
any case.  There's been a bunch of cases where people don't Cc me, and
then another maintainer assumes my silence implies agreement, and
applies.  Not nice. OTOH it's easy to ignore an irrelevant patch.

> > Wasn't this the intent?
> > 
> > > This is not the only mail sent here which doesn't fall into that
> > > category IMO. It is far from low volume list for quite some time.
> > > 
> > > Please let's get back low volume and API only discussion!
> > 
> > Maybe send patch dropping include/uapi/ from there,
> > should help drive the volumes down?
> 
> This would be an overkill IMO. It would be much more preferable if
> people actually think about who from the suggested list (either from
> MAINTAINERS or ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl) should be really added.
> 
> [...]

Yea, think about it, then what?  I've no idea what is linux-abi for, and
what people subscribed there are interested in. How should I? All I know
is what's in MAINTAINERS, which say "ABI/API". So I copy all ABI/API
patches there.

> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
--
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/

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