lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
Date
On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote:
> > > > > > * * *
> > > > > > This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest
> > > > > > udpate
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > VMware.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Summary of changes:
> > > > > > - Sparse clean.
> > > > > > - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a "complex macro" in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which we can't add parentheses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Remove all runtime assertions.
> > > > > > - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work.
> > > > > > - Fix VMCI handle lookup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time
> > > > > you
> > > > > posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked
> > > > > for,
> > > > > I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.)
> > > > >
> > > > > And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy...
> > > > >
> > > > > My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to
> > > > > try
> > > > > again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed,
> > > > > the
> > > > > questions and comments I made.
> > > >
> > > > Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you:
> > > >
> > > > 1. "Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these
> > > > "asserts", right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON()
> > > > calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from
> > > > a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it."
> > > >
> > > > 2. "You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file"
> > > >
> > > > 3. "This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace
> > > > knows
> > > > what gcc is using for "bool" is pretty low."
> > > >
> > > > Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand
> > > > why
> > > > you would be grumpy.
> > >
> > > You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which
> > > repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it
> > > was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those
> > > questions were addressed.
> >
> > That one was explicitly acknowledged in
> > <20121030052234.GH32055@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> and fixed in series
> > posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not
> > mention it again.
>
> I questioned it on November 15, in:
> Message-ID: <20121116000118.GA8693@kroah.com>
>
> Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask
> enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that
> were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch
> (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?)

Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain
why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;)

Mind resending it, please?

>
> And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions?
>
> Also, please start numbering the submissions, this having to reference
> them by date is going to cause us all to get even more confused quicker.

OK, will do.

Thanks,
Dmitry



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-27 01:21    [W:0.054 / U:2.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site