Re: pre-cursor email to incremental rev6 of altp2m patch series

["Sahita, Ravi" <ravi.sahita@intel.com>]

>From: Wei Liu [mailto:wei.liu2@citrix.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:25 AM
>
>On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:51:16AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/07/15 22:36, Sahita, Ravi wrote:
>> > Hi Wei and Maintainers,
>> >
>> > While we continue to work on the maintainer review comments - we
>> > prepared a minor incremental version v6 of our patch series that :
>> >
>> > 1. is rebased to staging 2. addresses a bug that we found/introduced
>> > in v5
>> >
>> > The intent of creating this incremental version is to aid you in the
>> > decision making for the freeze exception for altp2m (that would
>> > allow us to work on things until the 24th).  We realise that the
>> > decision for granting freeze exception is on Friday (17th) hence
>> > this email to seek feedback - we did not want maintainers to think
>> > that we are not working on the v5 feedback.
>> >
>> > The goal of this patch series is to identify things needed on top of
>> > v6 that are absolutely necessary for 4.6 and bin things we can
>> > continue addressing post inclusion in 4.6 (of course, the timeline
>> > of 24th still applies - and we will be able to respond only to a
>> > certain degree of changes on this v6 to meet that).
>> >
>> > We hear all the other comments we have on v5 from the maintainers
>> > and as we continue to work on them, we wanted feedback on whether
>we
>> > should post this v6.  Note again that this v6 does not have all the
>> > other v5 comments addressed as we work through them simply due to
>> > timing (and getting you a version that cleanly applies to staging).
>> >
>> > Please give feedback on whether we should post v6 of the patch
>> > series. (I know this email is late for UK maintainers, but we will
>> > respond as soon as we see a critical mass of responses)
>> >
>> > Thanks much, Ravi
>>
>> Overall, the altp2m series is looking in good shape, with half the
>> series already acked/reviewed  (taking into account the R-b tags which
>> should have been dropped).
>>
>> On balance, I think it is reasonably likely at this point that the
>> series can be turned around to address the remaining feedback by the
>> 24th.
>>
>> Therefore, my recommendation is to grant the freeze exception.
>>
>
>Thanks. My understanding is that this feature is low risk and very useful, and
>now maintainer has very positive view on this series.
>
>I'm happy to grant a freeze exception. Again, this series should be applied by
>the 24th, otherwise it misses the boat for 4.6.
>
>Ravi, I think the idea of incremental patch series on top of v5 will confuse
>reviewers. IMO you need to post a v6 full series. If you're not sure what are
>the absolute things that you need to address, reply to the comments in
>previous version and get clarification from maintainers.
>
>Wei.


Thanks Wei and Maintainers - we will work towards a full v6 .
I will shortly send out an email asking for some clarifications for v6, so that we have a manageable (and acceptable) target given the time remaining.

Ravi


>
>> ~Andrew