[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <649b1ba7495a3_8e17829485@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:25:59 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"Jane Chu" <jane.chu@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [v5 0/1] dax: enable dax fault handler to report
VM_FAULT_HWPOISON
Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Would you insist on the usage of cover letters also for single patches?
> >
> > I would neither insist on it, nor prohibit it.
>
> It seems that you can tolerate an extra message here.
>
>
> > It simply does not make enough difference.
>
> Can it occasionally be a bit nicer to receive all relevant information within a single patch
> instead of a combination of two messages?
No, I am the maintainer of this code and everything I needed to judge
this patch was provided. This cover letter only included inter-version
details and anything relevant for the kernel history is included in the
patch itself.
For any code I maintain inter-version details below the --- line or in a
0/1 cover letter are perfectly acceptable.
Please, if the review feedback is arbitrary, as it is in this case,
strongly consider not offering it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists