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

[Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>]

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.  The question is should we (or at least should we
> adhere to some minimal standards).  The standard we've been trying to
> hold to in SCSI is one review per accepted non-trivial patch.  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.  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/

-- 
Mike Kravetz

--
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>