Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] get_maintainer: stop sending every patch to LKML

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2026, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 3:34 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > So it occurred to me that it might be actually better to stop sending
> > > messages directly to LKML subscribers and only make it available for
> > > download somewhere and as a Lore archive.
> > >
> > > Is there really anyone depending on receiving all of the LKML traffic every day?
> >
> > * raises hand
> >
> > Some of us crazy people really do depend on it, yes.

+1, e.g. it's how I found out about this proposed change.  FWIW, I don't actually
need (or want) to receive *all* LKML traffic; I probably only truly consume less
than 1% of the mails, via heavy filtering.  But AFAIK, there isn't an alternative
way to arbitrarily choose what traffic is important to me.

> Exceptions would be straightforward to make though I suppose.
> 
> So really my question would be how many people there are who depend on
> receiving all of the LKML traffic every day via SMTP.  And I honestly
> think that not everybody subscribed to it.  Probably not even 10% of
> those people.

There are quite a few subsystems that use linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as their
one and only list, including (almost?) all of the subsystems that are routed through
the tip tree (x86@ isn't a subscribable mailing list).