Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:24:55 +0200 | From | Christian Brauner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage |
| |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:01:12AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:34 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote: > > I think I might not have communicated as clearly as I should have. > > Simply because I naively assumed that this is unproblematic. > > > > By "we" I mean people responsible for "fs/" which now happens to also > > include me. So the goal of this is for patches falling under fs/ to get > > picked up more quickly and broadly and share the maintenance burden. > > Did you get buy-in from other folks in 'fs/'? What other projects are > you carrying? Granted I'm a bit out of the loop these days but this is > the first I'm hearing of this. > > Andrew has a well oiled machine going, so if he's still ok carrying > the patches then that's where I'd like them until such time that you > can provide a tangible benefit.
A patch is sent for something that falls under the fs/ directory. In this case fs/ocfs2/. The maintainer's of fs/ocfs2/ provide their acks.
A maintainer - In this case my sorry ass - of fs/ looks into the maintainer's file to make sure that someone will pick up those patches by looking for a tree entry under the respective fs/ocfs2/ entry.
There is no tree entry.
So the patch is picked up by a respective maintainer of fs/ to ensure that fixes land in mainline.
So, if you have a tree that you think fs/ocfs2/ belongs to then please send a patch to add the respective tree into the maintainer's file.
This is especially true when fs/ stuff surprisingly goes via mm/. I don't want to have to guess what tree you're going through even if it's been going on for a long time.
There are no bad intentions here but please clarify the ocfs2 entry in the maintainer's file.
| |