Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert | From | Jens Axboe <> | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:47:45 -0600 |
| |
On 08/31/2015 02:42 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:25:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Kent, can we cut down on the victim playing? I said it should have been >> posted, did I not? And usually patches like that ARE always posted, but this >> beat the series of patches that it was a pre-patch for. Hence it just didn't >> get posted, and that was a mistake, after a private discussion where it >> ended up being cherry-picked for inclusion. Even for a trivial patch like >> this. But it's not the end of the world, it's not like I rewrote your >> architecture or grand caching design. > > You're backpedalling and trying not to admit it. Look, would you do it again or > not? Because yes of course I'm going to call you out on it if you think this is > an acceptable thing to do, which is certainly what you started off saying.
Kent, this is starting to get into playground territory. Should it have been posted/cc'ed to you? Yes. Do I think it's a big deal that it wasn't, given the nature of the patch? No. Is/was the patch the right thing to do? Yes.
>> Grow up. We should revert a patch cleaning up macros with returns in them, >> but you won't really let us in on why? >> >> Unless we can turn this into a REAL (and technical) discussion on why we >> should revert to the old code, I'm done spending time on this thread. > > Because what's the point of having a technical discussion if you're checking in > code behind my back, and you refuse to say you won't do so again in the future?
Get to the point.
> And calling it "just a cleanup" is disingenuous. You're making a real semantic > change to the code, which never mind the pros and cons of the patch itself, > means I have now have to rebase ~1000 patches on top of it and it will _silently > break, in a nasty way_ any patches that make use of closures - you just made > a lot of work for me, especially if I want to keep my tree bisectable. > > You remember how patches are supposed to go through the maintainer? This is part > of the reason. Are you starting to see why I'm in such a bad mood?
You still forgot the part where you explained the very good reasons for the why the code looked like that.
-- Jens Axboe
| |