lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Please merge two small bug fix patches from linux-next
From
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-09 00:17    [W:0.129 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site