* Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/29/2012 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:57 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >>Either this is a scheduler bugfix, in which case you > >>are better off submitting it separately and reducing > >>the size of your autonuma patch queue, or this is a > >>behaviour change in the scheduler that needs better > >>arguments than a 1-line changelog. > > > >I've only said this like 2 or 3 times.. :/ > > I'll keep saying it until Andrea has fixed it :) But that's just wrong - patch submitters *MUST* be responsive and forthcoming. Mistakes are OK, but this goes well beyond that. A patch-queue must generally not be resubmitted for yet another review round, as long as there are yet unaddressed review feedback items. The thing is, core kernel code maintainers like PeterZ don't scale and the number of patches to review is huge - yet Andrea keeps wasting Peter's time with the same things again and again... How much is too much? Thanks, Ingo -- 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>