Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100574-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240312155641.4003683-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <d24c8736-d963-4aa5-a3cb-5cc1110e3ca8@intel.com> <CAJD7tkYXfFiOQMpM+GkR7a=aUxFM-smDc-ZFTTtFu2Kbd2KoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240312161337.GFZfB_MdSFtAUXjeLU@fat_crate.local> <CAJD7tkYa_NuX2_PD1sEn6kE6Q0Z0VCyq2T2HK_Qdj-_94+OG_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240312163502.GGZfCENkvNb41IJWPy@fat_crate.local> <CAJD7tkZjHaLpWhn6bKRMwZrgiaK6V3gASB9d--e16xiV8P_7cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240312170111.GHZfCKV_brefr6M_2F@fat_crate.local>
In-Reply-To: <20240312170111.GHZfCKV_brefr6M_2F@fat_crate.local>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:05:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkbjdsJ5Man6hGt-eNGdxcqq4=xj-AFhkCXgun=FbdcBTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mm: Use IPIs to synchronize LAM enablement
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, 
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:01=E2=80=AFAM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wro=
te:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:46:07AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > Thanks for sharing that. I have always assumed this was about pinging
> > or resending patches when reviews are taking too long. In this case, I
> > was responding to review comments. Maybe I misinterpreted that.
>
> So what I would do, for example, is send my set, collect review
> comments, work them in, discuss them and once there are no more, I'll do
> a rev+1, test and send again. Not under a week unless it is some really
> serious bug.
>
> This is a perfectly fine cadence.

Makes sense to me, thanks!