Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:27:07 -0500 | From | Woody Suwalski <> | Subject | Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming |
| |
Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> 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? > Now resent. I see both versions of Greg's message - one from 15 Nov, one today's. On my Gmail account... So Greg did post it...
Cheers, Woody
| |