Hello, On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:33:34AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > If you think the active dropping is justified, please let the change > > and justification clearly stated. You're burying the active change in > > two separate patches without even mentioning it or cc'ing people who > > care about bio-integrity (Martin K. Petersen). > > Not intentionally, he isn't in MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl missed > it and it slipped by while I was looking for people to CC. Added him. git-log is your friend. For one-off patches, doing it this way might be okay. Higher layer maintainer would be able to redirect it but if you intend to change block layer APIs significantly as you try to do in this patch series, you need to be *way* more diligent than you currently are. At least I feel risky about acking patches in this series. * Significant change is buried without explicitly mentioning it or discussing its implications. * The patchset makes block layer API changes which impact multiple stacking and low level drivers which are not particularly known for simplicity and robustness, but there's no mention of how the patches are tested and/or why the patches would be safe (e.g. reviewed all the users and tested certain code paths and am fairly sure all the changes should be safe because xxx sort of deal). When asked about testing, not much seems to have been done. * Responses and iterations across patch postings aren't responsive or reliable, making it worrisome what will happen when things go south after this hits mainline. You're asking reviewers and maintainers to take a lot more risks than they usually have to, which isn't a good way to make forward progress. Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
