On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:32:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Wasn't an excuse, just an explanation. > * Significant change is buried without explicitly mentioning it or > discussing its implications. You are entitled to your opinion, but it honestly didn't seem that significant to me considering there was no code for splitting multi page bio integrity stuff before. > * 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. You picked a particularly obscure codepath. I have personally tested all of this code with both dm and md, and I spent quite a bit of time going over the dm code in particular to verify as best I could that the bio_clone() changes were safe. I should've said more before how the patch series as a whole was tested, but you hadn't asked either. > * 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. This patch series does touch a lot, and I'm certainly very new at getting stuff into upstream. But I'm doing my best not to miss stuff, and I've been asking you for advice and working on my workflow. And a fair amount of the stuff in this patch series has been your ideas (it was originally much more minimal). -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
