linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/11]Optimize the upload speed for PPP connection.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B03806F.7010803@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:04:47 -0500
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	huananhu@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/11]Optimize the upload speed for PPP connection.

David Miller wrote:
> From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:20:09 -0500
> 
>> What David may have meant, had he followed
>> Documentation/ManagementStyle or had any project management skills
>> what-so-ever, is that you need to follow
>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches more carefully.
> 
> Are personal attacks on me really necessary?
> 
Actually, ironic sarcasm (juxtaposition) is a form of humor, fairly
popular on such venues as "The Daily Show". :-)


> Do you want me to look closely at your patches with a high priority
> when you submit them for inclusion?
> 
Great, you're planning to start a new practice?  So far, I've only been
blessed with:

* 1st contact (Oct 2):

      "Otherwise asking for a is absolutely pointless as we have no
      context in which to judge the code you're showing us."

   The context (and entire previous patch) was pointed at by a link
   in the message, and an internet-draft, but that would have required
   effort (clicking and browsing).

   Not exactly what I'd call "look closely at your patches"....

* 2nd contact (Oct 5), replying to my post of Oct 3:

      "struct tcp_sock is already WAY TOO BIG on 64-bit systems, adding
      20 more bytes to it for some odd-ball feature is not something I'm
      willing to do, sorry."

   Always delighted to know our work is an "odd-ball feature"....

* 3rd contact, sending private email to you as maintainer, suggested by
   Andi Kleen's "On submitting kernel patches" for resolving conflicts,
   and getting flamed for sending private email to you!

* Recently, flamed for re-sending a query (after waiting 30 days):

      "Complaining that your work isn't getting looked at in a timely
      manner will always have the exact opposite effect that you want,
      it makes people have a smaller desire to look at your stuff."

   Yeah, 30 days just isn't long enough....  Fortunately, Eric Dumazet
   and Paul E. McKenney were really helpful (and others privately), and
   I thank them again!

* 2 days ago, flamed again for re-sending a patch (after waiting 5 days),
   although you'd never Ack'd or otherwise responded.


> You may be right, but that doesn't matter if you're interested in
> working together with me in the future.  There are diplomatic ways to
> do everything, and this wasn't one of those ways.
> 
Working *together* would be handy!  But that implies cooperation and
respect -- *not* biting the newbies nor dropping the F-bomb.

--
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/