On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:50:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
> Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
> > > who I would not trust as full maintainers. The ability to find defects
> > > is valuable in and of itself, and should be recognized as such, even
> > > when not accompanied by the rest of the maintainership package.
> >
> > Maybe, but odd-lot reviewers are most likely going to find
> > these same defects regardless of any "R" designation in
> > MAINTAINERS.
> >
>
> Actually, I'm thinking the R: tag is a good idea and we should have
> people ask to be added to MAINTAINERS if they want to review certain
> subsystems. Grant you, it should be people that the maintainers trust.
> I can think of several people I would like to be added as R: in tracing.
>
> The point is, when patches go out, it is easy to see who the Cc list
> should be. And perhaps this will get patches reviewed more. Maybe
> maintainers of other subsystems should ask to have the R: tag added for
> something they don't maintain but want to help out in.
>
> I may add myself to the x86, scheduler, time keeping and perhaps even
> RCU, as I like to read those patches. I'm not at the level of
> maintaining those subsystems, but I feel comfortable enough to review
> any changes there.
I would be quite happy to add you as official reviewer for RCU.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
