On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:32:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:33:34AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:

quoted

quoted

If you think the active dropping is justified, please let the change
and justification clearly stated.  You're burying the active change in
two separate patches without even mentioning it or cc'ing people who
care about bio-integrity (Martin K. Petersen). 

Not intentionally, he isn't in MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl missed
it and it slipped by while I was looking for people to CC. Added him.

git-log is your friend.  For one-off patches, doing it this way might
be okay.  Higher layer maintainer would be able to redirect it but if
you intend to change block layer APIs significantly as you try to do
in this patch series, you need to be *way* more diligent than you
currently are.  At least I feel risky about acking patches in this
series.

Wasn't an excuse, just an explanation.

* Significant change is buried without explicitly mentioning it or
  discussing its implications.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it honestly didn't seem that
significant to me considering there was no code for splitting multi page
bio integrity stuff before. 

* The patchset makes block layer API changes which impact multiple
  stacking and low level drivers which are not particularly known for
  simplicity and robustness, but there's no mention of how the patches
  are tested and/or why the patches would be safe (e.g. reviewed all
  the users and tested certain code paths and am fairly sure all the
  changes should be safe because xxx sort of deal).  When asked about
  testing, not much seems to have been done.

You picked a particularly obscure codepath. I have personally tested all
of this code with both dm and md, and I spent quite a bit of time going
over the dm code in particular to verify as best I could that the
bio_clone() changes were safe.

I should've said more before how the patch series as a whole was tested,
but you hadn't asked either.

* Responses and iterations across patch postings aren't responsive or
  reliable, making it worrisome what will happen when things go south
  after this hits mainline.

You're asking reviewers and maintainers to take a lot more risks than
they usually have to, which isn't a good way to make forward progress.

This patch series does touch a lot, and I'm certainly very new at
getting stuff into upstream. But I'm doing my best not to miss stuff,
and I've been asking you for advice and working on my workflow. And a
fair amount of the stuff in this patch series has been your ideas (it
was originally much more minimal).