From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7EA82D for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 05:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE7D1FAA6 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 05:02:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:02:20 -0700 From: Greg KH To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20140530050220.GA2505@kroah.com> References: <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> <20140528233145.GA14933@cloud> <1401344001.27691.4.camel@dabdike> <20140529233459.GD11741@kroah.com> <1401423973.2163.26.camel@dabdike> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401423973.2163.26.camel@dabdike> Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:26:13AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 16:34 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > Just preparing it for gerrit takes a long time (around ten minutes per > > > patch), which really reduces the volume of trivial patches, just because > > > no-one has that much energy (although some would argue it reduces the > > > volume too far). > > > > > > It's human nature to spend more time on the easy problems, so a flood of > > > trivial patches which are "obviously" correct is easier to review and > > > include than one patch which alters something deep within mm and needs > > > careful thought. At best, excessively split trivial patches are a > > > dilution of our review effort and at worst, they're actively sucking > > > people away from tackling the hard problems. > > > > I have not heard of these "cleanup" patches taking anyone's review > > cycles up for the "harder" patches, do you have examples of it? > > Yes, me. Then flat out reject them. Some subsystem maintainers do. Or, push back, like you said later with a "I'll take this if you will maintain the driver from now on." :) No one is forcing you to take these drivers, but as someone who has really old code, I can see how it would get annoying with people hitting you with cleanup patches. Maybe you should just do a "coding style cleanup" set of patches yourself one release to get it all in shape then not have to worry about it anymore. That's what I did years ago for the USB drivers... thanks, greg k-h