From: Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:42:43 -0400
> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 12:29 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> >> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 11:57:04 -0400 >> >> > Regardless though, I'm rather purturbed about this entire thing. >> If >> > you are right that because this got into 4.11, it's now a done >> deal, >> > then the fact that this went through 4 review cycles on netdev@ >> that, >> > as I understand it, spanned roughly one years time, and not one >> single >> > person bothered to note that this was as much an RDMA driver as >> > anything else, and not one person bothered to note that linux-rdma@ >> was >> > not on the Cc: list, and not one person told the submitters that >> they >> > needed to include linux-rdma@ on the Cc: list of these submissions, >> and >> > you took it without any review comments from any RDMA people in the >> > course of a year, or an ack from me to show that the RDMA portion >> of >> > this had at least been given some sort of review, was a collosal >> fuckup >> > of cross tree maintainer cooperation. >> >> We rely on people from various areas of expertiece to contribute to >> patch review on netdev and give appropriate feedback. >> >> If you actually look through the history, I made many semantic >> reviews >> of the SMC changes, and kept pushing back. >> >> And in fact I did this several times, making them go through several >> revisions, in the hopes that someone would review more of the meat >> and >> substance of the patch set. > > If you want to walk to the mailbox, you walk to the mailbox, you don't > walk to the grocery store, to the gym, and never even go to the > mailbox. Likewise, if you want review from RDMA experts, most (maybe > even all) don't subscribe to netdev@ because it's too high traffic, you > don't waste time on silly semantic pushbacks, you send a single email > that says "Please get review from linux-rdma@, thank you." Don't beat > around the bush, be direct and get it over with. That's exactly what I > do for all netdev@ related patches coming to linux-rdma@ without a > proper Cc: to netdev@. Read my other email, it wasn't %100 clear to me that this was so strictly RDMA related. And I kept pushing back with semantic changes in part because it wasn't clear. So as far as I was concerned I was not necessarily going to the wrong store, in fact I wasn't sure what store to go to. And none of the thousands of subscribers to netdev intuit'd this either. Maybe there is a reason for that. Furthermore, if netdev is too much traffic for one or two RDMA people to just casually subscribe to on the off chance that a situationm like this comes up, guess what it is like for me who has to read and review pretty much every single posting that is placed there?
