On 10/28/22 8:06 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:56:50 -0600 > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 10/28/22 4:24 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:26:03 -0700 >>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> This is just a single patch out of apparently 31, which claims that >>>> something that doesn't even exist in mainline must be used without any >>>> explanation. How do you expect anyone to be able to review it? >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221027150525.753064657@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Only the first patch is relevant to you. I guess the Cc list would have >>> been too big to Cc everyone that was Cc'd in the series. >> >> No it's not, because how on earth would anyone know what the change does >> if you only see the simple s/name/newname change? The patch is useless >> by itself. >> > > I meant this as the first patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221027150925.248421571@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Which was what the link above was suppose to point to. > > It's the only patch relevant to the rest of the series, as the rest is just > converting over to the shutdown API, and the last patch changes > DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS to catch if this was done properly. > > That is, patch 01/31 and the patch you were Cc'd on is relevant, and for > those that want to look deeper, see patch 31 as well. So we got half of what was needed to make any kind of sense of judgement on the patch. > But if I included the Cc list for patch 01 for all those Cc'd in the > entire series, it would be a huge Cc list, so I avoided doing so. And my point is that just CC'ing the relevant list for patch 4/31 is useless. Do we need to see the whole series? No. Does everyone need to see patch 1/31? Yes, very much so. Without that, 4/31 means nothing. This is pretty common for tree wide changes. The relevant lists need to see the full context, patch 4/31 by itself is useless and may as well not be sent at this point then. -- Jens Axboe
