From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f179.google.com (mail-yw1-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3133441D for ; Tue, 7 May 2024 03:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715051469; cv=none; b=OWtOMTKkgFPIh4W9SlZtNMepWq2Xc4qvJM+OIiWqqrHbh4HZI4zaULJNSa7Nc6LwQeQDFWTnecD4GnNYeEMa6jnV6C6VCgjjUfUoLS6dR0PO9R9FY3fz3KkbEHLQC8eOakbWT8r7WAxIxMQzf4V/WOqcDM150iIHcOFpmbY4+Jg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715051469; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YdVVJobqrElmQOMPMcRZo4thVshbPhTtSYdS3+V+NJg=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=f4vmcD8aUeHNZPByTJAB3mRS8PLXgn5BAHsof8+o/UHxM76jDby4YdInGvvEWnf4yAZp/BoUcMpuVQ8ks3pvD8F2TEqpTvVwChThnRGf5nALcGgTFOdCFOUi48eMS8ylDn+MF19tlkX8y0lwU/FiXC3qkpq8I6bM5dHiJd9+bMQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=m0DRsotR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="m0DRsotR" Received: by mail-yw1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-61b2218ab6fso20018717b3.1 for ; Mon, 06 May 2024 20:11:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1715051465; x=1715656265; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YdVVJobqrElmQOMPMcRZo4thVshbPhTtSYdS3+V+NJg=; b=m0DRsotRqETaoXECW8Zm42RHj7ImKJ0nUp48muH4q8ycifqjhsSh+s0x5gbrmkCBd5 t0pXsysFsJztFLWUEb9LERMkwXjgh5ZHOKw5WVYhZtttW/WBDp5F/L3bSBjpaF2NEyXJ ukoAAtHzsvTmQ++8UBMei4AZnNqg4XDqoK+4qHbwUPMQEyqibQe7Vm6UDJATI2JBpXvm 6UyxJWQ5vl/bf4ISNDIALgdJslSmavBUydIaWoSpaOwg2sERYpH0mJldUiX2+Ue0nRfS 808Ztb/ITSoKvjsU57FIuKOS6TI71kW/DKd+h4nDAwMNu5ELFlVEwqKd+SZbpqfXEmFr Ze4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715051465; x=1715656265; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YdVVJobqrElmQOMPMcRZo4thVshbPhTtSYdS3+V+NJg=; b=FpSY5+Dg1MTW2WqtcxwOebHazjAInYuLM7YxFES871fGcQ/0d48n62rfdhu6atWy0x UMYnrBe5ZN8tJFJdZXcxONdQqHsDm8DT9OIWhdJmjxgq/L+pI7fUxUZKr00fBCExqshr pYpgdWecGTCtGHy+q+DUHZ1o5kZxbNByLmyeIxBEBAe5znE34a49vwspg+3VvUgXw0vY 3F6oUQ/5jTduP3h+w3/9akmPtMYtbPFFPzRmoBXNa9DT3iP/ulk5KkIaWR3c1Jyf+w5P LsnC4F2H83jyjpY7VeR6r4iA20PEwXbL1JWKw5JiF54P6CfsOMC8OBrw+RER/jjw0PbS Xtew== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUTyuKLbNzAHSk3mG4irZXwkskFHoYy5uEuhoOWUq+GSnat64WcTpTE4TsJP2jh13hQz/nPYw6F3UW+WsDjZ1/X53ubhdsjasvgcz3MPfg= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzTUf2NQrb3QJcqL40PtQYb4Q7rKhE8vZ2AECrGj+69bX61+pO7 YJe/JjYZzScvXYp/SU8Z696z1/ZqOBQkvN1DXoViwVkjAQ1PpSJ2YAHpLjAi0/Afmd15y5BmONm 6B/kS9zYqolvWB+5Onu51yDO8ZE8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHhyFedVQRSpKK7ZwLBnTYToovWS3JosXV6aYzJkJO8Da7TdB18yvfQ2RFqkHDTp3mH7EGZIRAwfHCyRRuATYU= X-Received: by 2002:a81:9293:0:b0:61b:d8:c5de with SMTP id j141-20020a819293000000b0061b00d8c5demr11631065ywg.19.1715051465599; Mon, 06 May 2024 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240501134834.22323-1-dakr@redhat.com> <82f42e39-b1a2-4915-b382-71f4c06c3f53@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Wedson Almeida Filho Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 00:10:55 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: some aside maintainer advice (was Re: [PATCH v3] rust: alloc: fix dangling pointer in VecExt::reserve()) To: David Airlie Cc: Danilo Krummrich , ojeda@kernel.org, alex.gaynor@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, gary@garyguo.net, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com, benno.lossin@proton.me, a.hindborg@samsung.com, aliceryhl@google.com, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 23:47, David Airlie wrote: > > I think sending a v4 would not be a problem in the same timeframe > though, even for a one line change like that. > > You used nit: prefix and asked a question, answering that question was > the objective of the question? if changing the patch was the objective > "nit: please change this match to an if" would prove a better idea, > asking a submitter a question and them replying while sending a v3 > doesn't mean they ignored your questions, it just means they are > wanting more information before sending v4. Review questions on an > older version of the patch can still remain open while a new version > exists. > > There is nothing against sending updated patches as quickly as > possible, and adding feedback from open questions in another round, > otherwise patch series could be stalled on "nit" for a long time. I'm not sure I agree with this. Once a new version is out, we migrate to that new version. > > The latest exchange didn't lead me to believe this contributor "would > > just make changes and move on" (as you suggest above), so I had two > > options: reject the patch or accept it and change the style later. > > You can just ask for a v4, turnaround time for patch generation > shouldn't be taking a long time here, if v3 was 16 hours why do you > think a v4 would have stalled out the process for long? I can't demand, expect, nor be certain that contributors will turn around quickly. But let's try it on both counts. I'll respond to v2 and request a new patch. > > Since I obviously want the fix and for him to be properly credited (as > > he deserves and insisted that it be by means of his own commit -- see > > the discussion in v1, of which I wasn't part), I chose the second > > option because Miguel and I want to finalize the changes for 6.10 now. > > > > > I'd suggest if we wanted to establish conventions and rules around if > > > vs match we should hash it out on zulip and update some docs > > > somewhere, or we can just leave it as is and have maintainers state > > > their requirements to avoid ambiguity. > > > > Zulip? :) > > or in the RFL call, but somewhere outside the flow of a patch merge > that we've admitted has some time critical pieces to it. > > Dave. >