Re: [PATCH 7.2 v10 0/2] skip redundant sync IPIs when TLB flush sent them

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 4/24/26 21:18, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:09 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/24/26 20:50, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:36 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
>>> <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> But I imagine it's useful for reviewers to see Sashiko's feedback as
>>> well (without having to go look on the website).
>>
>> I read a lot of them, yes. Maintainers know how to find it.
>>
>> I even think maintainers should  briefly go over it before applying to spot if
>> anything in there is still left unanswered. But that doesn't need a mailing list
>> posting.
>>
>> I enjoy if contributors are aware of the reports and use that input in a
>> reasonable, like Zi just did [1]. And if they are unsure, they usually ask to
>> double-check.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/15191F7F-0D10-4907-B963-DA4EA0E36EB6@nvidia.com
>>
>>> It's possible that
>>> Sashiko is right but the author isn't convinced, so getting more eyes
>>> on the feedback would help.
>>
>> Forcing contributors to reply to everything. I don't like that, in particular
>> not as long as there is no way for contributors to run it early in private.
>>
>> In most cases, contributors just do the reasonable thing: incorporate the
>> feedback in a new version.
> 
> The usefulness of the mailing list posting is that it makes it easier
> to respond and discuss the review. Yes, what Zi did is great, but it
> would be nice if contributors/reviewers didn't need to manually quote
> Sashiko.

I think the most important part is the contributor side. A private posting is
sufficient for that.

So if possible, I'd start with that and see how it goes.

> 
> That being said, I understand the concerns and the pressure to respond
> to everything as you mention below. Maybe at some point this will
> become an easier decision to make as reviews become more refined.

There is another thing to consider here: impact on other reviewers, in
particular, new contributors, when they spot excessive review already posted to
the mailing list. And the first thing being them reading that.

-- 
Cheers,

David