Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Patch Submission process and Handling Internal Conflict

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 11:20 -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 01/24/2018 11:05 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > I've got two community style topics, which should probably be
> > discussed
> > in the plenary
> > 
> > 1. Patch Submission Process
> > 
> > Today we don't have a uniform patch submission process across
> > Storage, Filesystems and MM.A A The question is should we (or at
> > least should we adhere to some minimal standards).A A The standard
> > we've been trying to hold to in SCSI is one review per accepted
> > non-trivial patch.A A For us, it's useful because it encourages
> > driver writers to review each other's patches rather than just
> > posting and then complaining their patch hasn't gone in.A A I can
> > certainly think of a couple of bugs I've had to chase in mm where
> > the underlying patches would have benefited from review, so I'd
> > like to discuss making the one review per non-trival patch our base
> > minimum standard across the whole of LSF/MM; it would certainly
> > serve to improve our Reviewed-by statistics.
> 
> Well, the mm track at least has some discussion of this last year:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/718212/

The pushback in your session was mandating reviews would mean slowing
patch acceptance or possibly causing the dropping of patches that
couldn't get reviewed. A Michal did say that XFS didn't have the
problem, however there not being XFS people in the room, discussion
stopped there. A Having this as a plenary would allow people outside mm
to describe their experiences and for us to look at process based
solutions using our shared experience.

James

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>