Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] KVM: xen: update shared_info and vcpu_info handling

[Paul Durrant]

On 18/09/2023 18:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
[snip]
> Tag them RFC, explain your expectations, goals, and intent in the cover letter,
> don't copy+paste cover letters verbatim between versions, and summarize the RFC(s)
> when you get to a point where you're ready for others to jump in.  The cover
> letter is *identical* from v1=>v2=>v3, how is anyone supposed to understand what
> on earth is going on unless they happened to be in the same room as ya'll on
> Friday?

The cover letter is indeed identical because the purpose of the series 
has not changed. Each individual patch has a commit comment summarizing 
what changed from version to version or whether it is new in a 
perticular version. I thought this would be enough for any reviewer to 
be able to see what is going on. In future I will also roll these up 
into the cover letter.

> Doing rapid-fire, early review on beta-quality patches is totally fine, so long
> as it's clear that others can effectively ignore the early versions unless they
> are deeply interested or whatever.
>
> A disclaimer at the top of the cover letter, e.g.
>
>    This series is a first attempt at an idea David had to improve performance
>    of the pfncache when KVM is emulating Xen.  David and I are still working out
>    the details, it's probably not necessary for other folks to review this right
>    now.
>
> along with a summary of previous version and a transition from RFC => non-RFC
> makes it clear when I and others are expected to get involved.
>
> In other words, use tags and the cover letter to communicate, don't just view the
> cover letter as a necessary evil to get people to care about your patches.

That was not the intention at all; I put all the detailed explanation in 
the commit comments because I thought that would make review *easier*.

  Paul