On Thu 06-03-14 16:33:24, Tejun Heo wrote: > A bit of addition. > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:23:57PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not > > solved with any other patchset. I expect it to be reviewed as any other > > patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for > > inclusion. Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything > > accidentally. > > I can't force it down your throat but I feel somewhat uneasy about how > this was posted without any reference to the previous discussion as if > this were just now being proposed especially as the said discussion > wasn't particularly favorable to this approach. Prefixing RFC or at > least pointing back to the original discussion seems like the > courteous thing to do. Completely agreed! My first impression when I saw the patchset yesterday was that it was posted for sake of future LSF discussion. I was also curious about the missing RFC. Posting it as a proposal for inclusion is premature before any conclusion is reached. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
