Message-ID: <050a33f3-7a87-62ce-00bb-92b5d30915d1@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Dec 2021 22:13:11 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        "Chen Zhou" <dingguo.cz@...group.com>,
        John Donnelly <John.p.donnelly@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 02/13] x86/setup: Use parse_crashkernel_high_low() to
 simplify code



On 2021/12/29 18:38, Dave Young wrote:
> On 12/29/21 at 11:11am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 03:45:12PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>>> BTW, I would suggest to wait for reviewers to response (eg. one week at
>>> least, or more due to the holidays) before updating another version
>>>
>>> Do not worry to miss the 5.17.  I would say take it easy if it will
>>> miss then let's just leave with it and continue to work on the future
>>> improvements.  I think one reason this issue takes too long time is that it was
>>> discussed some time but no followup and later people need to warm up
>>> again.  Just keep it warm and continue to engage in the improvements, do
>>> not hurry for the specific mainline release.
>>
>> Can you tell this to *all* patch submitters please?
> 
> I appreciate you further explanation below to describe the situation.  I do not
> see how can I tell this to *all* submitters,  but I am and I will try to do this
> as far as I can.  Maintainers and patch submitters, it would help for both
> parties show sympathy with each other, some soft reminders will help
> people to understand each other, especially for new comers.
> 
>>
>> I can't count the times where people simply hurry to send the new
>> revision just to get it in the next kernel, and make silly mistakes
>> while doing so. Or not think things straight and misdesign it all.
>>
>> And what this causes is the opposite of what they wanna achieve - pissed
>> maintainers and ignored threads.

I just hope the first 4 patches can be merged into v5.17. It seems to me
that it is quite clear. Although the goal of the final stage is to modify
function parse_crashkernel() according to the current opinion. But that's not a
lightweight change after all. The final parse_crashkernel() change may take
one version or two. In this process, it maybe OK to do a part of cleanup first.

It's like someone who wants to buy a luxury car to commute to work six months
later. He buys a cheap used car and sells it six months later. It sounds right
to me, don't you think?

>>
>> And they all *know* that the next kernel is around the corner. So why
>> the hell does it even matter when?

Because all programmers should have confidence in the code they write. I have
a new idea, and I'm free these days, so I updated v19. I can't rely on people
telling me to take a step forward, then take a step forward. Otherwise, stand
still.

>>
>> What most submitters fail to realize is, the moment your code hits
>> upstream, it becomes the maintainers' problem and submitters can relax.

Sorry, I'll make sure all the comments are collected and then send the next
edition.

>>
>> But maintainers get to deal with this code forever. So after a while
>> maintainers learn that they either accept ready code and it all just
>> works or they make the mistake to take half-baked crap in and then they
>> themselves get to clean it up and fix it.
>>
>> So maintainers learn quickly to push back.
>>
>> But it is annoying and it would help immensely if submitters would
>> consider this and stop hurrying the code in but try to do a *good* job
>> first, design-wise and code-wise by thinking hard about what they're
>> trying to do.
>>
>> Yeah, things could be a lot simpler and easier - it only takes a little
>> bit of effort...
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards/Gruss,
>>     Boris.
>>
>> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
>>
> 
> Thanks
> Dave
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

Powered by blists - more mailing lists