From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40E3C433DB for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEDB65107 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238668AbhCPQWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:22:10 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36672 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236076AbhCPQV3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:21:29 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60ACD6508A; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:21:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1615911688; bh=JGA1BYJ4DnjkWs2uoiTYFr2jx9MyA+44cAQvE2O4UV0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ktIMhylmaxtlTzafPoz2hATAZL600RlZfL9ib7IL9WgxbnZIZEl5x/EMwWhL4nKlQ LuFXIj9s+0RHQnttz8m0jidqe9Eyq+clqafnKe9ukbEkAQHjXuXwk0mh39rOGun2fF 9USB/a9jfGZ4L+ENinQcVXOd7Ee8dTtEI1GLZt+vhdTVUj440iXl4KQgvTFzKSRWWM IawPB/6NvyawRK7Or8QpNOqe7NbzgOG387I946HsSX3LU6e2BDxBb5bemPftgRJRI2 pdO9qsnoee4U6udFNT2RK0wAt2bN9czxy5TKnBEjhQMxGt6w1ct9OVxrfPV2ZDCkH+ QCD4IWcoZoshw== Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:21:27 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" Cc: Vladimir Oltean , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Vivien Didelot , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Kurt Kanzenbach , Jakub Kicinski , Christian Eggers Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 113/290] net: dsa: implement a central TX reallocation procedure Message-ID: References: <20210315135541.921894249@linuxfoundation.org> <20210315135545.737069480@linuxfoundation.org> <20210315195601.auhfy5uafjafgczs@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 05:05:11PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: >On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:54:01AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 06:46:10AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: >> > I cc: everyone on the signed-off-by list on the patch, why would we need >> > to add more? A maintainer should always be on that list automatically. >> >> Oh, hm, could this be an issue with subsystems that have a shared >> maintainership model? In that scenario not all maintainers will sign-off >> on a commit. > >So a shared maintainer trusts their co-maintainer for reviewing patches >for Linus's tree and all future kernels, but NOT into an old backported >stable tree? I doubt that, trust should be the same for both. I don't think it's necessarily a trust issue, but is an availability issue: one of the reasons shared maintainership models exist is so that one maintainer can go on vacation (or focus other work) while the other maintainer(s) take over. If we send a review request to that maintainer he might be away and we'll never get our review. -- Thanks, Sasha