Re: [PATCH RFC V11 0/5] Basic guest memory introspection support

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:13:15PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 09/02/14 21:53, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:37:09PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> >> I apologize, I've sent this as a duplicate V10.
> >> Here it is, resent (correctly) as V11. Sorry.
> > 
> > You also have the RFC part on the patchset. Is that intentional?
> > Some maintainers (looks at himself) ignore (well, put it in the
> > 'todo pile' to be exact) patches like that until they are
> > more mature (non-RFC) and then they will review them.
> > 
> > I think the RFC part of the patches has been rubbed up as
> > the design is pretty baked?
> 
> Thanks for the comment, I was actually going to ask about that. I
> thought I'd keep the "RFC" in the title until I get Acks for all the
> patches, and then switch the prefix to "PATCH", but I'm not sure what
> the etiquette is in these cases.

It varies with maintainers. But with the amount of emails we get I think
most folks try to use the 'Del' button (or Ctrl-D) as much as possible.

> 
> Also, in this particular case I've reworked the 4/5 patch (the page
> fault injection patch), so I thought it might be proper to keep the
> "RFC" part for the whole series.
> 
> I'll switch to "PATCH" for the next series.

Thank you.

Also pls double-check that you have all the toolstack maintainers on
the 'To' so they can review the patches (I think those ones need
eyeballs as some of the hypervisor ones have been Acked by Jan).

Perhaps even mention in the cover letter what has been reviewed/changed
/needs attention to make it easier for maintainers to go right
ahead to the meat?

See http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-06/msg00357.html
for an example.

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Razvan Cojocaru
>