Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert | From | Jens Axboe <> | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:25:25 -0600 |
| |
On 08/31/2015 02:17 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing >>> list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't >>> know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's >>> really nothing to discuss. >> >> I already said that, yes, it should have been posted. But it's not like it >> was unreviewed. Or a massive change, by any stretch. > > And then you said you'd do it again. > > Look, it's about extending a basic courtesy - other people I work with have no > issue with this. Tejun still pings me and lets me know about percpu refcount > changes even though he's taken over as maintainer of that code since almost > after I wrote it. Similarly with most anyone else I've worked with in the kernel > community. I've always put quite a bit of effort into making sure I don't miss > anyone on my CC lists when I was doing work in the block layer that touched all > kinds of code. > > Why not you?
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.
>> And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that in >> the first place? > > Not terribly interested in doing that after the fact, when you've already > bypassed me and gotten your patch in, and you're still saying you'd do it again. > Sorry, I'm not having the discussion on those terms.
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.
-- Jens Axboe
| |