On Wed, Jun 01, 2022, Like Xu wrote: > On 1/6/2022 2:37 am, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Can we just punt this out of kvm/queue until its been properly reviewed? At the > > barest of glances, there are multiple flaws that should block this from being > > TBH, our reviewers' attention could not be focused on these patches until the > day it was ready to be ravaged. "Try to accept" is a good thing, and things need > to move forward, not simply be abandoned to the side. I strongly disagree, to put it mildly. Accepting flawed, buggy code because reviewers and maintainers are overloaded does not solve anything, it only makes the problem worse. More than likely, the submitter(s) has moved on to writing the next pile of patches, while the same set of people that are trying to review submissions are left to pick up the pieces. There are numerous examples of accepting code without (IMO) proper review and tests costing us dearly in the long run. If people want their code to be merged more quickly, then they can do so by helping address the underlying problems, e.g. write tests that actually try to break their feature instead of doing the bare minimum, review each others code, clean up the existing code (and tests!), etc... There's a reason vPMU features tend to not get a lot of reviews; KVM doesn't even get the basics right, so there's not a lot of interest in trying to enable fancy, complex features. Merging patches/series because they _haven't_ gotten reviews is all kinds of backwards. In addition to creating _more_ work for reviewers and maintainers, it effectively penalizes teams/companies for reviewing each other's code, which is seriously fubar and again exacerbates the problem of reviewers being overloaded.
