From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 20so1558204huc for ; Fri, 04 May 2007 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <170fa0d20705041109j1d130456p4b7cef3633f8edb4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:09:40 -0400 From: "Mike Snitzer" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12 In-Reply-To: <1178294379.7997.26.camel@imap.mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070504102651.923946304@chello.nl> <1178292179.7997.12.camel@imap.mvista.com> <1178293081.24217.46.camel@twins> <1178294379.7997.26.camel@imap.mvista.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Walker Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , Thomas Graf , David Miller , James Bottomley , Mike Christie , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips List-ID: On 5/4/07, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:38 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > This is kind of a lot of patches all at once .. Have you release any of > > > these patch sets prior to this release ? > > > > Like the -v12 suggests, this is the 12th posting of this patch set. > > Some is the same, some has changed. > > I can find one prior release with this subject (-v11) , what was the > subject prior to that release? It's not a hard rule, but usually >15 > patches is too many (check Documentation/SubmittingPatches under > references).. You might want to consider submitting a URL instead. Previous subjects were like: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7) A URL doesn't allow for true discussion about a particular patch unless the reviewer takes the initiative to create a new thread to discuss the Nth patch it a patchset; whereby taking on the burden of a structured subject and so on. It would get out of control on a large patchset that actually got a lot of simultaneous feedback... reviewers don't have a forum to talk about each individual change without stepping on each others' toes. > I think it's a benefit to release less since a developer (like myself) > might know very little about "Swap over Networked storage", but if you > submit 10 patches that developer might still review it, 40 patches they > likely wouldn't review it. The _suggestions_ in Documentation/SubmittingPatches are nice and all but the quantity of patches shouldn't _really_ matter. Documentation/SubmittingPatches actually doesn't cover how to post a large change because it first states: "Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file." then: "If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration." These suggestions conflict in the case of a large patchset: the second can't be met if you honor the first (more important suggestion IMHO). Unless you leave something out... and I can't see the value in leaving out the auxiliary consumers of the core changes. Reviewing 10 patches that are quite large/overloaded is actually harder than 40 broken-out/well-documented patches. But maybe others disagree. *shrug* -- 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: email@kvack.org