From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] suspend: Cleanup calling of power off methods. Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:02:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20050921110201.1cc7fca2.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050921101855.GD25297@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: torvalds-3NddpPZAyC0@public.gmane.org, pavel-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org, len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, drzeus-list-p3sGCRWkH8CeZLLa646FqQ@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, ncunningham-3EexvZdKGZRWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, masouds-VSK0CvVmMoVQFI55V6+gNQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > >> I think you are not following the proper procedure. All the patches > >> should go through akpm. > > Ok. I thought it was fine to send simple and obviously correct bug > fixes to Linus. I habitually scoop up patches and will get them into Linus (preferably after 1-2 -mm cycles) if he ducks them. > > One issue is that I actually worry that Andrew will at some point be where > > I was a couple of years ago - overworked and stressed out by just tons and > > tons of patches. > > > > Yes, he's written/modified tons of patch-tracking tools, and the git > > merging hopefully avoids some of the pressures, but it still worries me. > > If Andrew burns out, we'll all suffer hugely. > > > > I'm wondering what we can do to offset those kinds of issues. I _do_ like > > having -mm as a staging area and catching some problems there, so going > > through andrew is wonderful in that sense, but it has downsides. > > It is especially challenging for people like me who typically work on > parts of the kernel without a maintainer. So there frequently isn't > an intermediate I can submit my patches to. Yup. And MAINTAINERS has quite a few omissions. I generally know who should be poked and if there's nobody obvious I have 26000 patches to grep through to find out who might know a bit about that code. Low-level x86 is a bit of a problem really because it has many cooks and no obvious chef. Individual maintainers have differing response times, differing attentiveness and differing patchloss ratios. There's also confusion once I've cc'ed a maintainer on a patch over whether I'll be sending it to Linus or whether I want them to. If a maintainer has a tree in -mm then I'll autodrop the patch if they merge it, so there's no confusion there. If the maintainer says "thanks, merged" and I don't have their tree in -mm then I'll tend to hang onto the patch indefinitely until it finally hits -linus. Or I'll eventually forget and merge it up anyway ;) If the maintainer just acks the patch I'll send it in to Linus. If the maintainer nacks the patch I'll either drop it or I'll mark it not-for-merging and hang onto it anwyay, as a reminder that we have some bug which needs fixing. If the maintainer has a tree in -mm and doesn't merge the patch I'll hang onto it and periodically resend to the maintainer until some definite response comes back. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php