[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/39] remap_file_pages protection support, try 2

    * David S. Miller <> wrote:

    > From: Blaisorblade <>
    > Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:56:11 +0200
    > > However, I sent the initial tarball containing all them, so I hope
    > > that will be useful.
    > So not only did you spam the list with 40 patch postings, you sent a
    > second copy of everything as a tarball attachment as well. That's
    > even worse.
    > Please do not abuse the list server in this way, it is a resource that
    > is not just your's, but rather one which has to be shared amongst all
    > folks doing kernel development.

    while i agree that 40 patches is not common, i'd like to point out that
    Paolo has sent 40 very nicely split up patches instead of one
    unreviewable monolithic patch, which are the encouraged format for
    kernel changes. I havent seen any hard limit mentioned for patch-bombs
    on lkml before - and i've seen much larger patchbombs going to lkml as
    well, without any followup chastising of the submitter. E.g.:

    Subject: [0/48] Suspend2 for 2.6.12

    So if there needs to be some limit, it might be worth defining some
    actual hard limit for this.

    But the more important point is that given how complex the VM, and in
    particular sys_remap_file_pages_prot() is, i'm personally much more
    happy about the work having been submitted in a split-up way than i am
    unhappy about the bombing!

    Paolo has actually worked alot on this, which resulted in 40 real, new
    patches, so i couldnt think of any better way to present this work for
    review. Had he posted some link it would not be individually reviewable.
    (nor could the patch components be picked up by search utilities in that
    case - i frequently search lkml for patches, but naturally i dont
    traverse links referenced in them.) So i think we should rather be happy
    about the 40-patch progress that Paolo has made to Linux, than be
    unhappy about this intense work's effect on our infrastructure.

    In other words, we should not be worried about the number of real
    changes submitted to lkml, and we should only hope for that number to
    increase, and we should encourage people to do it! Paolo did this in 2
    weeks, so it's not like he has sent changes accumulated over a long time
    in a patch-bomb. It was real, cutting-edge work very relevant to lkml,
    which work i believe Paolo didnt have much choice submitting in any
    other sensible and reviewable form.

    (i think i agree that maybe the tarball should not have been sent - but
    even that one was within the usual size limits and other people send
    tarballs frequently too.)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-08-14 04:06    [W:0.023 / U:28.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site