Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Shrink zones before removing memory

From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Jun Yao <yaojun8558363@gmail.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
	Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Shrink zones before removing memory
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:45:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <78545b80-ea30-0d44-acb8-364312ae9595@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200203174653.74630ef5744c68be55374b0d@linux-foundation.org>

>> I can understand this is desirable (yet, I am
>> not sure if this makes sense with the current take-and-not-give-back
>> review mentality on this list).
>>
>> Although it will make upstreaming stuff *even harder* and *even slower*,
>> maybe we should start to only queue patches that have an ACK/RB, so they
>> won't get blocked by this later on? At least that makes your life easier
>> and people won't have to eventually follow up on patches that have been
>> in linux-next for months.
> 
> The merge rate would still be the review rate, but the resulting merges
> would be of less tested code.

That's a valid point.

> 
>> Note: the result will be that many of my patches will still not get
>> reviewed, won't get queued/upstreamed, I will continuously ping and
>> resend, I will lose interest because I have better things to do, I will
>> lose interest in our code quality, I will lose interest to review.
>>
>> (side note: some people might actually enjoy me sending less cleanup
>> patches, so this approach might be desirable for some ;) )
>>
>> One alternative is to send patches upstream once they have been lying
>> around in linux-next for $RANDOM number of months, because they
>> obviously saw some testing and nobody started to yell at them once
>> stumbling over them on linux-mm.
> 
> Yes, I think that's the case with these patches and I've sent them to
> Linus.  Hopefully Michel will be able to find time to look them over in
> the next month or so.

I really hope we'll find more reviewers in general - I'm also not happy
if my patches go upstream with little/no review. However, patches
shouldn't be stuck for multiple merge windows in linux-next IMHO
(excluding exceptions of course) - then they should either be sent
upstream (and eventually fixed later) or dropped.

Thanks Andrew!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb