[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <085de112-7238-4bbe-822c-198a7291ea89@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:01 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, rdunlap@...radead.org, mhocko@...e.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, zokeefe@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
jglisse@...gle.com, cl@...two.org, jack@...e.cz,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, will@...nel.org, tiwai@...e.de,
catalin.marinas@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com, dev.jain@....com,
raquini@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com, vishal.moola@...il.com,
sunnanyong@...wei.com, usamaarif642@...il.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, ziy@...dia.com, shuah@...nel.org,
peterx@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, ryan.roberts@....com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, baohua@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mm: introduce THP deferred setting
Fundamentally I trust you to make sure this all goes correctly so let's not
belabour the point or delay things here :)
So in that vein, Nico - I would sugesst for future respins adding a really
clear bit to the header as David suggested :) also update the cover letter
tests so it isn't reliant on a possibly ephemeral web link.
But otherwise let's proceed as was.
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 02:24:45PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyhow, to me the dependency is obvious, but I've followed the MM meeting
> > > discussions, development etc.
> >
> > Right but is it clear to Andrew? I mean the cover letter was super unclear
> > to me.
>
> I mean, assuming that it would not be clear to Andrew (and I think it is
> clear to Andrew), I we would get CCed on these emails and could immediately
> scream STOOOOOP :)
>
> And until this would hit mm-stable, a bit more time would pass.
>
> >
> > What's to prevent things getting merged out of order?
>
> Fortunately, there are still people working here and not machines (at least,
> that's what I hope).
Obligatory link to this :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lsExRvJTAI
>
> > And do people 'just
> > have to remember' to resend?
>
> Yes, in this case Nico wants to get his stuff upstream and must drive it
> once the dependencies are met IMHO.
>
> >
> > If there's a requirement related to the ordering of these series it really
> > has to be expressed very clearly.
>
> Jup. I'll note that for now there was no strict rule what to tag as RFC and
> what not that I know of. Of course, if people send broken, half-implemented,
> untested ... crap, it should *clearly* be RFC.
>
> People should be spelling out dependencies in any case (especially for
> non-RFC versions) clearly.
>
> I'll note that even if there would be a rule, I'm afraid we don't have a
> good place to document it (and not sure if people would find it or even try
> finding it ...) :/
Yeah... :)
>
> A big problem is when some subsystems have their own rules for how to handle
> such things. That causes major pain for contributors ...
Yeah, I wish there was something more general.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Cheers, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists