[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACePvbUSHYgit93ofjg6cMfb+CR9x6CZnMGh7Utb+zEzkOG75w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 23:09:49 +0400
From: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pratmal@...gle.com, sweettea@...gle.com,
gthelen@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: ghost swapfile support for zswap
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 6:28 AM Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I am talking about upstream.
So far I have not had a pleasant upstream experience when submitting
this particular patch to upstream.
> I really appreciate anybody participating in Linux
> kernel development. Linux is good because different
> people bring different perspectives to the table.
Of course everybody is welcome. However, NACK without technical
justification is very bad for upstream development. I can't imagine
what a new hacker would think after going through what I have gone
through for this patch. He/she will likely quit contributing upstream.
This is not the kind of welcome we want.
Nhat needs to be able to technically justify his NACK as a maintainer.
Sorry there is no other way to sugar coat it.
Chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists