On Wed 24-01-18 11:05:44, James Bottomley wrote: > I've got two community style topics, which should probably be discussed > in the plenary > > 1. Patch Submission Process > > Today we don't have a uniform patch submission process across Storage, > Filesystems and MM. The question is should we (or at least should we > adhere to some minimal standards). The standard we've been trying to > hold to in SCSI is one review per accepted non-trivial patch. For us, > it's useful because it encourages driver writers to review each other's > patches rather than just posting and then complaining their patch > hasn't gone in. I can certainly think of a couple of bugs I've had to > chase in mm where the underlying patches would have benefited from > review, so I'd like to discuss making the one review per non-trival > patch our base minimum standard across the whole of LSF/MM; it would > certainly serve to improve our Reviewed-by statistics. Well, stuff like fs/reiserfs, fs/udf, fs/isofs, or fs/quota are also parts of filesystem space but good luck with finding reviewers for those. 99% of patches I sent in last 10 years were just met with silence (usually there's 0-1 developer interested in that code) so I just push them to have the bug fixed... I don't feel that as a big problem since the code is reasonably simple, can be tested, change rate is very low. I just wanted to give that as an example that above rule does not work for everybody. For larger filesystems I agree 'at least one reviewer' is a good rule. XFS is known for this, I believe btrfs pretty much enforces it as well, Ted is not enforcing this rule for ext4 AFAIK and often it is up to him to review patches but larger / more complex stuff generally does get reviewed. So IMO ext4 could use some improvement but I'll leave up to Ted to decide what's better for ext4. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
