On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 10:33:13AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 21:10:20 +0100 > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > "RFC" means you are not comfortable submitting the changes yet, so you > > don't need my review at this point in time. Become confident in your > > changes before asking for others to review the code please. > > I guess you and I have a different understanding of RFC (Request for > Comments). As to me, comments are a form of review. > > In other words, RFC to me means the review is "does this design look like > it will work", and we should be reviewing the design and overview of the > patches. Not the nitty gritty details (like missed error handling, unless > the design will prevent it). Although, you could add those comments in a > review. > > When I post RFCs, it's not that I'm not comfortable submitting the change, > it's because I want to know if what I'm doing makes sense, and I might be > missing something that will make this effort in vain. > > What ever happen to the "Submit early, submit often" mantra? For patches from "experienced" submitters like this, with reviews from other experienced reviewers already (look at the s-o-b chain here), there's no excuse for it to be a RFC unless something is really odd as the experienced reviewers should have already handled the "comments" portion already. Otherwise their review was kind of pointless, right? I'm all for submitting early, but be confident! Also, I have way too many non-RFC patches to review in my queue, so that means any RFC patches fall to the bottom so I like to give people a reason why I'm not reviewing them, like I did here. thanks, greg k-h
