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 ESMTPS id 23BFB258 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B16F3143 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:59:01 +0000 (UTC) To: Dan Carpenter From: "Martin K. Petersen" References: <20188905.kHbMkj7sB6@avalon> <1834084.5qZ8rLimvk@avalon> <1492631703.3217.30.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <3f55980c-1e8d-c841-2555-472ed10eb2fc@sandisk.com> <20170426084253.yvxyzb3khh2fej4j@mwanda> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:58:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170426084253.yvxyzb3khh2fej4j@mwanda> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:42:53 +0300") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ksummit , Dave Airlie , Greg Kroah-Hartman , David Miller , James Bottomley , Doug Ledford , Bart Van Assche , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dan, > My patches are normally simple is probably part of the difference. Patch complexity usually has something to do with it. In SCSI I deal with simple patches right away. Other people are also willing to jump in and review because the time commitment to do so is low. It's much harder to get people to review intricate core changes because they need a significant chunk of uninterrupted time. And that's a precious resource. Another gripe of mine wrt. big vs. small is that almost all vendor driver updates come in the form of "30+ patches to update the driver to version XYZ". Often a week before the merge window. And then they wonder why nobody reviews them. Well, duh. That's a huge chunk of time for somebody to commit. It would be much better if they'd drop the arbitrary and pointless "driver version XYZ" notion and just send a few patches per week. Reviewers are much more inclined to go "Oh, I have 15 minutes now, let me check my inbox". In most cases the reviews would also be more thorough because you don't lose focus after patch number 7 and just want this entire thing to be over before your brain turns into mush. Anyway. Just being the devil's advocate here. It just seems there's a consistent "maintainers are bad/lazy/unresponsive" theme going on. But for better or for worse, patch submitters are often presenting their work in ways that are completely indigestible. Not just to the maintainers, but to the people willing to do reviews. Not sure what we can do to address this? I often have big patch series sitting tagged in my inbox for days/weeks while I chip away at them. But the reality is that few, if any, reviewers do the same. If there is not enough time to review a submission first time people see it in their inbox, chances are that the review opportunity is lost forever. And if nobody else reviews the patches the burden falls on me, making my backlog even bigger. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering