Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:48:26 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 0/9] Request for inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memory pressure controls |
| |
On 12/15/2011 09:48 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:40:19 +0900 > >> I met this bug at _1st_ run. Please enable _all_ debug options!. > > Plus the CONFIG_NET=n and other build failures. > > This patch series was seriously rushed, and very poorly handled. > > Yet I kept getting so much pressure to review, comment upon, and > ultimately apply these patches. Never, ever, do this to me ever > again. > > If I don't feel your patches are high priority enough or ready enough > for me to review, then TOO BAD. Don't ask people to pressure me or > get my attention. Instead, ask others for help and do testing before > wasting MY time and crapping up MY tree. > > I should have noticed a red flag when I have James Bottomly asking me > to look at these patches, I should have pushed back. Instead, I > relented, and now I'm very seriously regretting it. > > All the regressions in the net-next tree over the past several days > have been due to this patch set, and this patch set alone. > > This code wasn't ready and needed, at a minimum, several more weeks of > work before being put in. > > Instead, we're going to bandaid patch it up after the fact, rather > than just letting these changes mature naturally during the review > process. Hi Dave,
You are right about all points. I will admit to it, face it, and apologize it. I guess the best I can do right now is fix whatever you guys point me to and not repeat it in the future.
Thanks
| |