Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:27:07 -0500
From:	Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
	George Zhang <georgezhang@...are.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
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@...r-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@...ah.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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists