> On Nov 28, 2019, at 9:52 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I also agree that it should not be used for basic functional/compile > tests (I said "It is a way of giving patches *more* testing."). It > should not be the only place to test stuff (especially to let somebody > else do it). > > However, sometimes we really have to get additional test coverage via > linux-next, especially for weird archs/configurations/setups. > > ... and if we don't have enough reviewers, it's really hard to get stuff > upstream. > > I wish MM patches would get reviewed more thoroughly. > > (If we all make a wish, maybe Santa Clause will listen ;) ) What I don’t understand is that we have an policy prohibiting code churn like code optimization in cold path, but allow those micro cleanup of code. Those cleanup also tend to be unregulated and is subject to personal tastes (for example, your CS teachers may have a different taste from mine). I can understand developers want to have fun, but perhaps there are other playground areas that worth taking more risk?
