[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <196a645c-f41d-8f35-d854-f30b66aff2a6@xen.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:48:28 +0100
From: Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] KVM: xen: update shared_info and vcpu_info
handling
On 18/09/2023 18:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
[snip]
>
> Tag them RFC, explain your expectations, goals, and intent in the cover letter,
> don't copy+paste cover letters verbatim between versions, and summarize the RFC(s)
> when you get to a point where you're ready for others to jump in. The cover
> letter is *identical* from v1=>v2=>v3, how is anyone supposed to understand what
> on earth is going on unless they happened to be in the same room as ya'll on
> Friday?
The cover letter is indeed identical because the purpose of the series
has not changed. Each individual patch has a commit comment summarizing
what changed from version to version or whether it is new in a
perticular version. I thought this would be enough for any reviewer to
be able to see what is going on. In future I will also roll these up
into the cover letter.
>
> Doing rapid-fire, early review on beta-quality patches is totally fine, so long
> as it's clear that others can effectively ignore the early versions unless they
> are deeply interested or whatever.
>
> A disclaimer at the top of the cover letter, e.g.
>
> This series is a first attempt at an idea David had to improve performance
> of the pfncache when KVM is emulating Xen. David and I are still working out
> the details, it's probably not necessary for other folks to review this right
> now.
>
> along with a summary of previous version and a transition from RFC => non-RFC
> makes it clear when I and others are expected to get involved.
>
> In other words, use tags and the cover letter to communicate, don't just view the
> cover letter as a necessary evil to get people to care about your patches.
That was not the intention at all; I put all the detailed explanation in
the commit comments because I thought that would make review *easier*.
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists