From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933432AbXGYQIS (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:08:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761149AbXGYQIF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:08:05 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50983 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760634AbXGYQIE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:08:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:07:43 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kacper Wysocki Cc: Rene Herman , david@lang.hm, Nick Piggin , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Ray Lee , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck list , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton , Jesper Juhl Subject: Re: howto get a patch merged (WAS: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Message-ID: <20070725160743.GB8284@elte.hu> References: <367a23780707250830i20a04a60n690e8da5630d39a9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <367a23780707250830i20a04a60n690e8da5630d39a9@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Kacper Wysocki wrote: > [snip howto get a patch merged] > > But a "here is a solution, take it or leave it" approach, before > > having communicated the problem to the maintainer and before having > > debugged the problem is the wrong way around. It might still work > > out fine if the solution is correct (especially if the patch is > > small and obvious), but if there are any non-trivial tradeoffs > > involved, or if nontrivial amount of code is involved, you might see > > your patch at the end of a really long (and constantly growing) > > waiting list of patches. > > Is that what happened with swap prefetch these two years? The approach > has been wrong? i dont know - but one of the maintainers of the code (Nick) says that he asked for but did not get debug feedback: > > > And yet despite my repeated pleas, none of those people has yet > > > spent a bit of time with me to help analyse what is happening. Con, the maintainer of -ck, certainly has (or had, when he maintained it) enough clout to coordinate such an effort between non-developer -ck users and the MM maintainers. Maybe he attempted to do that and has tried to provide debug feedback to MM maintainers? Ingo