Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61023-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240208125426.70511-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240208125426.70511-2-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <ZcYqIOR17BHJyHbx@alley>
In-Reply-To: <ZcYqIOR17BHJyHbx@alley>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:46:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UYDXjZc6R8p7nzMUGwQ7GWOLAj5Pz2bOQZkd+Pqw8D3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/2] watchdog/softlockup: low-overhead detection of interrupt
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	kernelfans@gmail.com, liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:35=E2=80=AFAM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote=
:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am sorry for jouning this game so late. But honestly, it went
> forward too quickly. A good practice is to wait a week before
> sending new version so that you give a chance more people
> to provide some feedback.
>
> The only exception might be when you know exactly who could
> review it because the area in not interesting for anyone else.
> But this is typicall not the case for kernel core code.

Just for the record, I am not personally a fan of the advice that you
need to unconditionally wait a week between spins.

FWIW, I _am_ totally sold on the idea of waiting a while if there is
still ongoing discussion about how to move forward. You don't want to
fragment the conversation with some replies against the old version
and some against the new. However, in this case there was no ongoing
discussion and I don't see any particular harm that was done with
Bitao spinning as often as he did. I actually find it quite nice not
to need to wait a week (or more) between versions because it means
that patches are still fresh in my mind when I review the next
version.

Is your concern that some of my advice to Bitao took the series in the
wrong direction and you wished you could have put a stop to it sooner?
..or is your concern that Andrew has already landed the current
patches in his "unstable" tree? ...or is there some other problem that
was caused by Biao's quick spins of this series?

In any case, I'm happy that you've found time to jump in and review
the code! My current understanding of Andrew's process is that since
things are only in his "unstable" branch that Bitao can still send new
versions of the series and Andrew can update the patches.

-Doug