On 01/24/2018 11:05 AM, 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, the mm track at least has some discussion of this last year: https://lwn.net/Articles/718212/ -- Mike Kravetz -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
