From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933068AbYD1JRz (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:17:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758583AbYD1JRq (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:17:46 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:60514 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757106AbYD1JRp (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:17:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080428.021745.17554887.davem@davemloft.net> To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Cc: mingo@elte.hu, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [patch] x86, voyager: fix ioremap_nocache() From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080428100154.0ac65cb6@core> References: <20080427231809.GA13848@elte.hu> <20080427.163106.181887129.davem@davemloft.net> <20080428100154.0ac65cb6@core> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Alan Cox Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:54 +0100 > > You can post whatever patches you like a million times to lkml. > > That's not the problem. > > > > It's that the patches don't get reviewed, posting them more or to a > > different place doesn't help that. > > So review them. Your comments strike me as the pot calling the kettle > black given the way the network people like to live on their own mailing > list. Oh contraire. Because we networking folks use a seperate mailing list with a lower signal to noise ratio than lkml, and as a result more specialization, more patches get more review by more specialists. It's the point I'm trying to make every time the "post everything to lkml" argument gets fronted. Telling me to review all of this crud just ignores the problem. And the implication is that it's OK for unreviewed patches to go into the tree, and it's most certainly not. You might want to know that linux-next mainly exists because of how much of this has been going on over the past half year or so.