Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Sep 2016 17:27:13 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check |
| |
On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:08:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > It got sent for REVIEW COMMENTS and TESTING for people like Robert > > > Jarzmik and Adam, to get some sense as to the _entire_ series > > > acceptability to people. This is a _massive_ series, and it's still > > > growing. The series is now at more than 100 patches. > > > > We've already covered the fact that you should have sent it as an > > [RFC]. None of this would have happened if you'd done so. Let's > > leave it at that. > > I wonder if you realise, or even known, given your relative inexperience, > that many people actually _ignore_ patches with a RFC tag, and provide > no review or comments against them.
That's their prerogative. I would take that to mean that the set is reasonable, and would subsequently follow up with a full submission.
No problem there.
> Remember, by your own admission, > there's twenty years experience difference between us.
True. And times have changed a lot since the 'good ol' days'. I guess for you this means a lot less freedom than you're used to which I'm truly sorry about. However, the processes I (and most of the guys I work with, including your besty LinusW) are in place for the better.
> I'm going to take one last issue with your comments: > > > That's the problem, it was not clear, at all. You said you "could > > have arguably applied it earlier in the set". But without knowing > > that this wasn't a stand-alone set (how could I, you didn't mention > > that), what does the really mean? > > So by your own admission, you weren't sure of the understanding, and > from the extract of your mailbox that you kindly provided earlier in > your reply: > > > 30 2016 Russell King - AR ( 0) [PATCH 0/8] SA11x0/PXA remainder & cleanups > > 30 2016 Russell King ( 0) └>[PATCH 1/8] mfd: ucb1x00: allow IRQ probing to work with IRQs > 32 > > if that's all you saw, "earlier in the set" in the first message > wouldn't make any sense, and should've set alarm bells ringing that > something had gone wrong, or you were without complete information. > > The reasonable thing to have done - especially by your own admission > that you found it confusing - would have been to ask for clarification. > You did not, you chose after just one hour (again, your admission) to > apply the patch.
If I queried every little oddity I read in commit messages and cover letters, it would either eat up all of my time, ensuring that I am not functional as an Engineer or Maintainer, or it would drive me to distraction where I would subsequently end up in some kind of asylum.
Last time; "I see no issue with the way I operated given the information that was provided."
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |