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]

Message-ID: <20151023084951.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:49:51 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	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 Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:33:02AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, the git people are not per definition following lkml standards,
even though git originated 'here'. They, for a long time, also defaulted
to --chain-reply-to, which is absolutely insane.

> 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.

Agreed, although for single patches I use my regular mailer (mutt) and
can't be arsed with tools. Also I don't actually use git-send-email
ever, so I might be biased.
--
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/