On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:00 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 05:36:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:51:34 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

You've fundamentally violated kernel process and etiquette. I'd be more
forgiving, but this is at v2 and you've not cc'd KEY people. Twice. This is
totally unacceptable. See [0] if you are unsure of how to do so.

This feels excessive to me.  linux-mm averages a mere 140 mesages/day
and it seems reasonable to assume that key people are spending their 5
minutes to scroll through the email subjects.

In practice we did all miss it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask
people to run get_maintainers.pl to avoid this.

In any case, I truly do think this series works better as RFC, I mean Liam
has already voiced the kind of disagreements I share with it, and we need
to rethink how to approach it in general.

So if this is simply sent as RFC with the correct cc's (and ideally with
some review feedback applied - a better cover letter, etc.) then it makes
everything easier.

As mentioned the timing is unfortunate here, this is a series we really
want to make sure is properly reviewed before any chance of merge so again
this points to RFC being the way forward.

Hi everyone,

Sorry for the delayed response -- I was traveling and didn’t have
access to email.

Thank you for the feedback. I realize I missed some key reviewers in
the CC list for this patch.
When I ran get_maintainer.pl, it returned a large list of recipients.
To avoid over-CC’ing people (which has been an issue for me in the
past), I tried to trim it down to maintainers and a few others I
thought would be interested. Clearly, I got it wrong and missed some
key folks. That was not my intention, and I’ll make sure to fix it
when I resend the patch as an RFC.

On the technical side, Liam is right that the copy-pasted arch code
has inconsistencies (missing checks, order of checks, ...). I agree
there’s room for further consolidation. I’ll take another stab at it
and resend it as an RFC with an updated cover letter, as Lorenzo and
others suggested.

Thanks,
Kalesh