Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262223AbVA0BxV (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:53:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262513AbVAZXwx (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:53 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:4282 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262253AbVAZUBf (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:01:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:01:27 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Christoph Hellwig , Evgeniy Polyakov , Jean Delvare , Greg KH , LKML Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc2-mm1: SuperIO scx200 breakage Message-ID: <20050126200127.GA15061@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Evgeniy Polyakov , Jean Delvare , Greg KH , LKML References: <20050124175449.GK3515@stusta.de> <20050124213442.GC18933@kroah.com> <20050124214751.GA6396@infradead.org> <20050125060256.GB2061@kroah.com> <20050125195918.460f2b10.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050126003927.189640d4@zanzibar.2ka.mipt.ru> <20050125224051.190b5ff9.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050126013556.247b74bc@zanzibar.2ka.mipt.ru> <20050126101434.GA7897@infradead.org> <20050126131234.A30805@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050126131234.A30805@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1257 Lines: 28 On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:12:34PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:14:34AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > That's simply not true. The amount of patches submitted is extremly > > huge and the reviewers don't have time to look at everythning. > > > > If no one replies it simply means no one has looked at it in enough > > detail to comment yet. > > How do people get to know this? Grape vines and crystal balls are > inherently unreliable. If someone had looked and considered it good he'd have replied and said that. Simple ACK/NACK scheme - if neither returns consider it lost. > So, if the community has a problem with enough time to review patches, > the community must get more (good) patch reviewers. We can't go around > blaming the patch submitters for a community failing. Absolutely. I think the major problem is that no one pays people for doing reviews so this is purely a spare-time job. And that spare time is limited due to real life issues for most people. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/