Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: don't check the nid in find_(smallest|biggest)_section_pfn

[David Hildenbrand]

On 28.11.19 15:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-11-19 09:30:29, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2019, at 9:03 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's why we have linux-next and plenty of people playing with it
>>> (including you and me for example).
>>
>> As mentioned, it is an expensive development practice. Once a patch
>> was merged into linux-next, it becomes someone elseâs problems
>> because if nobody flags it as problematic, all it needs is a good eye
>> review and some time before it gets merged into mainline eventually.
> 
> I would tend to agree. linux-next shouldn't be considered a low bar
> target. Things should be reviewed before showing up there. There are
> obviously some exceptions, as always, but it shouldn't be over used.
> 
> I wish MM patches would be applied to mmotm (and linux-next) more
> conservatively.

I also agree that it should not be used for basic functional/compile
tests (I said "It is a way of giving patches *more* testing."). It
should not be the only place to test stuff (especially to let somebody
else do it).

However, sometimes we really have to get additional test coverage via
linux-next, especially for weird archs/configurations/setups.

... and if we don't have enough reviewers, it's really hard to get stuff
upstream.

I wish MM patches would get reviewed more thoroughly.

(If we all make a wish, maybe Santa Clause will listen ;) )

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb