Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] x86/mce: Fix timer list corruption and avoid redundant polling

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 08:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> The rapid cadence was not borne out of impatience, but rather active,
> iterative engagement with Tony Luck and Marco Crivellari to incorporate
> their direct feedback, alongside addressing pre-existing issues flagged by
> Sashiko. Each revision sought to turn around those specific corrections
> promptly.

How would you feel if I am doing a patchset and I send you a new version each
time I fix an issue there?

That's not how this is done.

You collect *all* feedback, you reply to the list with your feedback to
Sashiko review so that people can see whether that is going to be addressed or
it doesn't make sense after explaining why, you test your patchset thoroughly and
*then* you send again.

You don't have to wait a whole week but you have to give people a chance to
take a look at your pile. Note that you're not the only one sending patches.

How about you try to review some patches of other people instead of only
sending, while waiting for people to take a look at yours?

And perhaps test some -rc kernels and report issues?

That would be of immense help than simply only sending patches.

Balancing the generation of new code and reviewing of other code on the ML
would be the optimal thing to do, I would say. And very much appreciated by
maintainers - much more than only sending patches.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette