Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mm: introduce THP deferred setting

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

>>
>> Anyhow, to me the dependency is obvious, but I've followed the MM meeting
>> discussions, development etc.
> 
> Right but is it clear to Andrew? I mean the cover letter was super unclear
> to me.

I mean, assuming that it would not be clear to Andrew (and I think it is 
clear to Andrew), I we would get CCed on these emails and could 
immediately scream STOOOOOP :)

And until this would hit mm-stable, a bit more time would pass.

> 
> What's to prevent things getting merged out of order?

Fortunately, there are still people working here and not machines (at 
least, that's what I hope).

> And do people 'just
> have to remember' to resend?

Yes, in this case Nico wants to get his stuff upstream and must drive it 
once the dependencies are met IMHO.

> 
> If there's a requirement related to the ordering of these series it really
> has to be expressed very clearly.

Jup. I'll note that for now there was no strict rule what to tag as RFC 
and what not that I know of. Of course, if people send broken, 
half-implemented, untested ... crap, it should *clearly* be RFC.

People should be spelling out dependencies in any case (especially for 
non-RFC versions) clearly.

I'll note that even if there would be a rule, I'm afraid we don't have a 
good place to document it (and not sure if people would find it or even 
try finding it ...) :/

A big problem is when some subsystems have their own rules for how to 
handle such things. That causes major pain for contributors ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb