From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] xenctx: Clean up stack trace when hypercall_page not in symbol table Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:28:33 -0500 Message-ID: <527B9581.9000308@terremark.com> References: <1383768500-4245-1-git-send-email-dslutz@terremark.com> <1383768500-4245-2-git-send-email-dslutz@terremark.com> <527B585C0200007800100784@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1383812524.2320.2.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> <527B61C802000078001007DA@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1383827816.32399.20.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3778525012181304035==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VePgh-0004Oj-8E for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:31:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1383827816.32399.20.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Stefano Stabellini , GeorgeDunlap , Don Slutz , Ian Jackson , Don Slutz , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============3778525012181304035== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050208010407090402030903" --------------050208010407090402030903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/07/13 07:36, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:47 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.11.13 at 09:22, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:07 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> And a note on patch submission: You send _to_ the list, and _cc_ >>>> maintainers and other relevant people (without stretching the >>>> meaning of "relevant" too much). >>> Do we need such a rule? Why is it useful? >>> >>> I personally don't mind which field causes the mail to arrive in my >>> INBOX. I suppose you filter "To: xen-devel; Cc: Jan" differently to "To: >>> Jan; Cc: xen-devel"? >> Exactly. Mails Cc-ed to me get treated almost equally to all other >> xen-devel traffic, whereas mails directed at me mean to me that >> a response or other kind of action is expected. Basically the >> usual (common sense?) email rules... >> >> So maybe I was too strict about the maintainer part - I don't mind >> being sent mails to me that fall under the areas I'm maintainer of, >> since there I'm obviously requested to take some sort of action. >> But in the case here I certainly feel it was wrong to send the >> whole series _to_ everyone. > Ah, yes that makes sense, I hadn't noticed that bit. Well, I was confused. get_maintainer.pl reports that George Dunlap (supporter:XENTRACE) Ian Jackson (supporter:TOOLSTACK) Stefano Stabellini (supporter:TOOLSTACK) Ian Campbell (supporter:TOOLSTACK) From MAINTAINERS: M: Mail patches to: FullName and I followed that. It was months ago that I read over the wiki page. Jan came from: Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenctx: Add an option to output more registers. Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:00:05 +0100 From: Jan Beulich To: Don Slutz CC: Ian Campbell , Don Slutz , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , xen-devel >>> On 17.10.13 at 20:41, Don Slutz wrote: > From: Don Slutz > > Also fixup handling of symbol files, and output of 2 page stacks, and output > of non stack memory. Considering the size of the change this should be broken up, and the individual changes need to be described better in the commit message. [...] and my understanding was that re-worked patches need to have --to= added. One on the things that is not clear is do I change from --cc= to --to=after a response? >>> http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches#Cc_the_maintainer_of_ >>> the_code_you_are_modifying is confusingly worded and somewhat contradictory, >>> in that it initially requests to send to the maintainer and then later to cc >>> them. As I say, I don't think it really matters which but if you care then it >>> would be useful to clarify the wording there. >> Yes, I think we should. I would agree. I would also change the wording in MAINTAINERS. -Don Slutz --------------050208010407090402030903 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 11/07/13 07:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:47 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 07.11.13 at 09:22, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:07 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:

And a note on patch submission: You send _to_ the list, and _cc_
maintainers and other relevant people (without stretching the
meaning of "relevant" too much).

Do we need such a rule? Why is it useful?

I personally don't mind which field causes the mail to arrive in my
INBOX. I suppose you filter "To: xen-devel; Cc: Jan" differently to "To:
Jan; Cc: xen-devel"?

Exactly. Mails Cc-ed to me get treated almost equally to all other
xen-devel traffic, whereas mails directed at me mean to me that
a response or other kind of action is expected. Basically the
usual (common sense?) email rules...

So maybe I was too strict about the maintainer part - I don't mind
being sent mails to me that fall under the areas I'm maintainer of,
since there I'm obviously requested to take some sort of action.
But in the case here I certainly feel it was wrong to send the
whole series _to_ everyone.

Ah, yes that makes sense, I hadn't noticed that bit.
Well, I was confused.  get_maintainer.pl reports that

George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:XENTRACE)
Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)

From MAINTAINERS:

        M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>

and I followed that.  It was months ago that I read over the wiki page.

Jan came from:
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenctx: Add an option to output more registers.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:00:05 +0100
From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Don Slutz <Don@CloudSwitch.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> 


>>> On 17.10.13 at 20:41, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
> From: Don Slutz <Don@CloudSwitch.com>
> 
> Also fixup handling of symbol files, and output of 2 page stacks, and output 
> of non stack memory.

Considering the size of the change this should be broken up, and
the individual changes need to be described better in the commit
message.
[...]
and my understanding was that re-worked patches need to have --to=<responder> added.  One on the things that is not clear is do I change from --cc= to --to=after a response?

      

        

          
http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches#Cc_the_maintainer_of_ 
the_code_you_are_modifying is confusingly worded and somewhat contradictory, 
in that it initially requests to send to the maintainer and then later to cc 
them. As I say, I don't think it really matters which but if you care then it 
would be useful to clarify the wording there.


        

        
Yes, I think we should.

      

    

    I would agree.  I would also change the wording in MAINTAINERS.

    

       -Don Slutz

  


--------------050208010407090402030903--


--===============3778525012181304035==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

--===============3778525012181304035==--