Re: [PATCH] LVM Cachevol and Integrity volumes break entire LVM VG

From: Glenn Washburn <development@efficientek.com>
To: Patrick Plenefisch <simonpatp@gmail.com>
Cc: The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@gnu.org>,
	Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LVM Cachevol and Integrity volumes break entire LVM VG
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 04:25:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240427042500.2141a4be@crass-HP-ZBook-15-G2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOCpoWfN2AeMV8MuyJUEsKwa_MC6HSNO3dztCxh_fS0i-D1Aag@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:02:03 -0400
Patrick Plenefisch <simonpatp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah thanks, I sent them in two separate emails with git format-patch,
> hopefully correctly?

I'm confused git format-patch does not send anything, that would be git
send-email. I don't see any recent patches from you on the list, so I
don't think they were sent. Also, for multiple patches please use a
cover-letter (--cover-letter) and threading (--thread). Also make sure
to use an appropriate version (-v2 in this case). And CC Daniel.

Glenn

> 
> Patrick
> 
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:13 PM Glenn Washburn
> <development@efficientek.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:10:16 -0500
> > Glenn Washburn <development@efficientek.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 21:00:19 -0500
> > > Patrick Plenefisch <simonpatp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thankfully, no further changes were actually necessary, so here is my
> > > > attempt to convert it to two patches
> > > >
> > > > I attached the diffs, but also committed them to
> > > > https://github.com/byteit101/grub2/tree/grub-lvmintegrity
> > >
> > > I saw your recent email about wondering what the expected time frame
> > > should be for submitted patches. I think there has been no follow up on
> > > this in part because external branches and repos are generally not
> > > looked at. You should submit the new patches as a "v2" and you'll
> > > likely have more of a chance of it getting looked at. All development
> > > happens on list. Another problem is a dearth of reviewers. The distro
> > > guys review their own stuff and each others, but as a rule not much
> > > else. Daniel reviews everything that ultimately gets accepted and a
> > > good deal that doesn't, and so is stretched thin. If you make his life
> > > easier (eg. by submitting patches inline to the list), you'll have a
> > > better chance of things moving more quickly or at all.
> >
> > And I just noticed that you did send the patches as attachments. You
> > should send patches with git-format-patch and git-send with a
> > cover letter for multi-patch series. Also, if you haven't heard
> > anything in a month, you can ping Daniel on the thread to see what the
> > status is.
> >
> > >
> > > The situation is unfortunate, in that, as I see it, GRUB is still in
> > > the stone age when it comes to the development process. Using an pull
> > > request / patch tracker would be great and useful, but there's not
> > > much will at the top to move away from the list as the sole method of
> > > change submission.
> > >
> > > Glenn
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:06 PM Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 02:52:37PM -0500, Patrick Plenefisch wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm, what would the logical parts be? The solution for both cachevol and
> > > > > > integrity is the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me at least code refactoring which you are doing could be
> > > > > taken out to a separate patch. Maybe something else... Anyway, in general
> > > > > smaller patches ease reviewing...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I do know another part needs to be added as I still need to investigate some
> > > > > > warnings, but I'll likely need to do that this weekend when I have some more
> > > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool! Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel

_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel