Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756581AbXJHTJE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:09:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755027AbXJHTIy (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:08:54 -0400 Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:33523 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754656AbXJHTIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:08:53 -0400 To: Al Viro Cc: mgross@linux.intel.com, Stefan Richter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:15 BST." <20071008190515.GU8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:08:52 -0600 Message-ID: <32082.1191870532@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 742 Lines: 19 Al Viro wrote: > > A patch which is not "worthwhile" is also not "appropriate". Mere > > correctness in a mathematical sense is not enough as technical review > > criterion. > > Yes, but there's also such thing as "worthwhile removal". Good point. So the text should probably say "worthwhile change" rather than "worthwhile addition." I do believe that thinking about whether the change as a whole is a desirable thing is an important part of the review process. jon - 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/