Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:24:45 +0200 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3 |
| |
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:19:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:47:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:00:42PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > [snip: reusing truncate.c code] > > > > > > With all that writing you could have just done it. It's really > > > > > > I would have done it if it made sense to me, but so far it hasn't. > > > > > > The problem with your suggestion is that you do the big picture, > > > but seem to skip over a lot of details. But details matter. > > > > BTW. just to answer this point. The reason maybe for this > > is because the default response to my concerns seems to > > have been "you're wrong". Not "i don't understand, can you > > detail", and not "i don't agree because ...". > > Sorry, I didn't want to imply you're wrong. I apologize if > it came over this way. I understand you understand this code > very well. I realize the one above came out > a bit flamey, but it wasn't really intended like this.
Ah it's OK :) Actually that was too far, most of the time actually you gave constructive responses. Just one or two sticking points but probably I was getting carried away as well. Nothing personal of course!
> I'll take a look at your suggestion this evening and see > how it comes out.
Cool.
> > Anyway don't worry. I get that a lot. I do really want to > > help get this merged. > > I wanted to thank you for your great reviewing work, even if I didn't > agree with everything :) But I think the disagreement were quite > small and only relatively unimportant things.
Yes, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the design...
Thanks, Nick
| |