Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 8 Jan 2012 15:14:01 -0800 | Subject | Re: Please merge two small bug fix patches from linux-next | From | Harvey Harrison <> |
| |
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2012, Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 13:26 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> wrote: >> > > Below are two patches that have been in linux-next for ages (via akpm's >> > > tree). They are prette simple, straight-up, bug fixes. They have been >> > > submitted to maintainers multiple times over (IIRC at least the past >> > > year), but for some reason the maintainers seem uninterested in picking >> > > them up (or even responding to them). >> [] >> > they seem to have Andrew's sign-off, so I'd have expected them to >> > come through Andew. What's up? >> >> >From my perspective, the issue lies with James' >> apparent desire to keep scsi tree changes as close >> to zero as possible. >> >> Many obvious corrections to scsi defects have gone >> unapplied. >> > > I have to agree. It's actually gotten to the point that I personally > completely avoid/ignore scsi code when looking for stuff to fix/improve > since I don't expect to be able to get the patches merged anyway.. >
Basically the same experience here trying to submit sparse annotations or patched using the get_unaligned_* functions instead of explicit byte-shifting.
Harvey
| |