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

[Glenn Washburn]

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