Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage

[Christian Brauner]

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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.