Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:45:17 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/3] Per cpu relocation to ZERO and x86_32 percpu ops on x86_64 |
| |
* Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > if you treat testing and review efforts like that they might have to > > wait even longer :-( "My stuff is there somewhere amongst 1415 -mm > > patches. Thank you for your interest and buzz off already." > > Well I guess you have to get used to maintainership I think. F.e. the > s390 people tested this patchset without requiring a backport. > Typically arch maintainers test mm and do not force the patches back > into mainline.
Huh?? This is getting absurd. Look at it from my perspective: i spent a few spare cycles on a Friday afternoon to check a few x86 relevant patches that looked interesting to me personally. At the moment they are still cooking in -mm and were not submitted to upstream merging yet - so i did not expect anything from them, but i wanted to help out because the patches looked good.
This was not any "formal" x86 maintainance activity - your patches are still cooking. But i was thinking about maybe putting these patches into the x86 test grind to get them shaken out some more the random 1000 bootup tests a day that it does. When integrating your patches I found a bug and tentatively reported it to you, pointing out that it could easily be my merge fault. Basically i was offering you to let your patches cook in another kitchen as well. I never before had a negative response to that :-/
So i expected some "great that you are looking at this stuff, lemme help you sort it out, you missed these 2-3 patches in -mm" reaction (that's how i'd have reacted to you doing the same) instead i got these very surprising and fundamentlly hostile responses from you, an unfriendly "test -mm and dont pick out individual patches" suggestion and now this mail from you with this rather subtly formulated condescending tone:
> Well I guess you have to get used to maintainership I think. [...]
so i guess i'll leave it here for now with your percpu patches, i've got far better things to do on a Friday afternoon :-/ We'll deal with your stuff once it gets so far as upstream integration.
> I am a bit surprised since Andi and I never had this issue.
huh??? I am really wondering where this hostile attitude of yours comes from. Getting patches build and boot is something architecture maintainers do on a regular basis, it's a minimum requirement before getting something merged into an architecture.
And btw., -rc3-mm2 seems to have grown a spontaneous reboot problem, that looks quite similar to what i saw:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc3/2.6.24-rc3-mm2/announce.txt
| - First bug report: after ten minutes happily compiling kernels my | 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 x86_64 box spontaneously rebooted.
so from now on i guess i'll have to tag you as "does not want any advance testing and review help with his patches" person and will leave you alone.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |