From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 989253DF008 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2026 03:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785124705; cv=none; b=An4Y5x7ICCMA/BMsurS9yv0c9KM1V8ZwLJkMNWn2a3Rn77spyyQR1yyUmKGqE9klOxLmFmqySZjdKE30Bj6k+n3q+c+YyuQVJ/wzjXRQ2bQo1S2fkD8NuV1oA3h8U3llYQ62iRMq60cR37T76M3/mBQSnDuxwY6g3189CmQUOGk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785124705; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LiuX1Dq1gmcfl2Zu2NUOfS34txZxB3lXhumGD5CDYhs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bSYT9ZzCxzWIcgp2Mqe2KvQThy7BSvG0E1hloEfpAI6LbrGJSPBtV3OuVTtBPqFYD/vVCEIgLEpScLg2NVE+pAI8qLue5PfTQouA35DkI/Ab4sr3w7l/KTuxtXh7hCMtn/ff1I0n4IH3eFAuJDl0TFZlujWjbAyyU23IQ4Vr6mY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=Zh+3hBg/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="Zh+3hBg/" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-173-48-129-101.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.129.101]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66R3vS9n006831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:57:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1785124653; bh=ItgPvuvyqAAGBJx+2HAp9XvX82ec8ui7c3ZW93EpwMk=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Zh+3hBg/fnZZ1R7UCfO+Af9Vx7+QMrN+gAfRBo30zc0rQbSiG/VoVGS/eVxagpm5C ZB72rYqg2g7WRNqH/dHGumlPSUXQZzJE/Ws32zCs7CgScMjNGQ+pugy4sLLverRYtV WaMyWwgQFPHaiUYm/R/qoUqN2ntZ8yeXc3PFeEFivjgVZLp4uMq1oITbp+ndna6Zpo 2LC3aFRGXLDk3UmJNPjBuS4xiYfXgltroyPynZyMmCVh10ToOoWq76r9LQQ+somZzW OkGvaJjMZb7PMrNAt0wjHjp+7K+RKYyjeyU8NC0sC9Wiz7Tiujeq+MMlEDPmhEIowv 0EbruKzkPfgHg== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 5C1C3C25AE3; Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:56:28 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Mark Brown Cc: Tetsuo Handa , Miguel Ojeda , Alexander Potapenko , Christoph Hellwig , Aleksandr Nogikh , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda , Linus Torvalds , peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: Policy regarding linux-next only changes Message-ID: References: <2c903636-532f-47b5-9894-00470f235682@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <58689827-9211-4f26-9777-51c0b5e1eebb@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <8c3d90d5-747e-451b-bdcb-1cfe1d5fce53@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <0e5ea495-07a2-4f83-8fd7-c90563bc12c4@sirena.org.uk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0e5ea495-07a2-4f83-8fd7-c90563bc12c4@sirena.org.uk> On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 06:49:44PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote: > The other side of this is that the reason people are noticing that you > have added these patches is that you are causing breakage and disruption > for them that catches them by surprise, a lot of what's coming through > here is that you need to work actively with other people. I will note that the last person who attempted to push changes to other subsystems via their own tree was Kent Overstreet. That was considered **extremely** anti-social, and after people complained Linus agreed to reject any pull request that had changes outside of bcachefs. This is slightly different, in that it is pushing broken patches into linux-next, instead of Linus's tree, but I think there is a similar precedent. If someone is doing something abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's because they think they are doing something where the means justify the ends (whether it's "I fix syzbot bugs" or "I make a file system which doesn't eat your data"). If you do things in an antisocial way, Maintainers are *not* obligated to work with you, and while you can appeal to Linus, you might not like the resolution.... - Ted