linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock

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: <20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:19:00 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the
 finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback


* Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:26:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary - 
> > but if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free 
> > to pull the patch from tip:sched/arch:
> 
> Nope, I'm not taking the tree anymore, [...]

So instead of saying "sure, lets avoid conflicts next time 
around" you are now *refusing* to take technically perfectly 
fine patches just because another maintainer asked you to use a 
different workflow for future patches? Wow ...

Regardless of the imperfect workflow I certainly find Catalin's 
work useful technically, so I'll send his preparatory commit to 
Linus in this merge window - I hope you will see sense later and 
won't block his subsequent ARM patches...

> [...] you've refused to behave in a reasonable way.  Your 
> problem to sort out now.

For the record, that's utter nonsense:

 - *You* failed to reply on the public thread to sort this out
   properly in the Git space, avoiding conflicts naturally:

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232

   While generally we don't mind conflicts, I do mind 
   *avoidable* conflicts - and this was such a case.

 - *You* created a conflict by taking a tree that patched some 
   rather old version of the scheduler, shortly before the merge 
   window, when maintainer capacity is the shortest. PeterZ
   is a nice guy who will agree to just about any approach, but 
   I'm quite sure he did not tell you to do *that* ;-)

 - *You* replied to me in a rather dismissive and increasingly
   obnoxious style when I inquired about it constructively:

     http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/79

There were several easy solutions - I cannot believe that we are 
still arguing this:

 - it literally took me two minutes to create a proper Git
   solution, it's not rocket science. You could have done it, or
   I could have done it for you (as I have done it).

 - Or you could have replied to the public thread, explaining
   why that is not desirable.

 - Or you could have said "sure thing, lets do it that way next
   time around".

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/