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
