----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: j...@joshtriplett.org > Cc: "Joe Perches" <j...@perches.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > mi...@kernel.org, la...@cn.fujitsu.com, > dipan...@in.ibm.com, a...@linux-foundation.org, "mathieu desnoyers" > <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>, > n...@us.ibm.com, t...@linutronix.de, pet...@infradead.org, > rost...@goodmis.org, dhowe...@redhat.com, > eduma...@google.com, dvh...@linux.intel.com, fweis...@gmail.com, > o...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu > Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 3:27:29 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty > > > > > > > > > recruiting > > > > > > > > > and retaining reviewers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch > > > > > > > > > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested > > > > > > > > > adding an > > > > > > > > > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information > > > > > > > > > on a > > > > > > > > > per-subsystem basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure of the value of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not just mark the actual reviewers as maintainers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed in the kernel summit discussion, being a regular > > > > > > > patch > > > > > > > reviewer isn't the same thing as being *the* maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's not particularly important or valuable > > > > > > here to make that distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > What real difference does it make? > > > > > > > > > > In the particular case of Josh, none, at least from my viewpoint. He > > > > > of > > > > > course might or might not want to take on additional maintainership > > > > > responsibility at this particular point in time, in which case, I > > > > > would > > > > > be more than happy to have him as a designated maintainer. > > > > > > > > For the record, I'd be happy to be listed as a co-maintainer for RCU. > > > > :) > > > > > > I would be happy to put you down as maintainer and Steven down as > > > official reviewer. ;-) > > > > I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan > > as reviewers as well, with their consent. > > Mathieu, Oleg, Lai, any objections?
No objection from me. I'm always glad to help out reviewing RCU patches whenever I have some cycles available. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/
