On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:00 AM Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 05:36:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:51:34 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > You've fundamentally violated kernel process and etiquette. I'd be more > > > forgiving, but this is at v2 and you've not cc'd KEY people. Twice. This is > > > totally unacceptable. See [0] if you are unsure of how to do so. > > > > This feels excessive to me. linux-mm averages a mere 140 mesages/day > > and it seems reasonable to assume that key people are spending their 5 > > minutes to scroll through the email subjects. > > In practice we did all miss it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask > people to run get_maintainers.pl to avoid this. > > In any case, I truly do think this series works better as RFC, I mean Liam > has already voiced the kind of disagreements I share with it, and we need > to rethink how to approach it in general. > > So if this is simply sent as RFC with the correct cc's (and ideally with > some review feedback applied - a better cover letter, etc.) then it makes > everything easier. > > As mentioned the timing is unfortunate here, this is a series we really > want to make sure is properly reviewed before any chance of merge so again > this points to RFC being the way forward. Hi everyone, Sorry for the delayed response -- I was traveling and didn’t have access to email. Thank you for the feedback. I realize I missed some key reviewers in the CC list for this patch. When I ran get_maintainer.pl, it returned a large list of recipients. To avoid over-CC’ing people (which has been an issue for me in the past), I tried to trim it down to maintainers and a few others I thought would be interested. Clearly, I got it wrong and missed some key folks. That was not my intention, and I’ll make sure to fix it when I resend the patch as an RFC. On the technical side, Liam is right that the copy-pasted arch code has inconsistencies (missing checks, order of checks, ...). I agree there’s room for further consolidation. I’ll take another stab at it and resend it as an RFC with an updated cover letter, as Lorenzo and others suggested. Thanks, Kalesh
