Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:24:43 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alexandre.torgue@...com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	hdegoede@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ahci: st: Add support for ST's SATA IP

> > Again, that's not what I said. It's great that your subsystem is being
> > improved, but insisting that anyone who submits new code to rebase
> > on top of some development patches which only exist in mail form, and
> > refusing to take patches until they do so doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> No policy is perfect and nothing can be decided solely on single
> policy.  There of course are trade-offs to make depending on the
> specific circumstances.  The problem, here, is that what has been
> going on is skewed towards one extreme and has potential to develop
> into a fairly large mess if left uncorrected.
> 
> The message I've been sending out has been pretty clear.  There are
> multiple people duplicating about the same thing in their drivers.
> Fortunately, Hans' refactoring is pretty close to completion and
> should help simplifying most of them.  I'm not even asking you to do
> the bulk of work.  Just take a look at it and help / push if you can.
> It may be unfortunate that the circumstances haven't been completely
> aligned for your convenience but that's what needs to be done to keep
> things sustainable.

I understand this. Thanks for taking the time to explain properly.

FWIW, I have now managed to rebase the driver on top of Hans' work and
I am now in the process of converting it to the new way of working.

> This is a collaborative work and what I asked you isn't some
> insurmountable amount of extra work.  It's just beyond me that your
> response is "it's not fair".  No wonder the whole thing has been
> drifting towards mess.  That's not how this works.  Judging from your
> linaro address, I assume you have been involved with some upstream
> work, how can this possibly be your response?  Such attitude is
> actively harmful and has no place in upstream development.
>
> Again, of course, there can be trade-offs.  We sometimes do need to
> take termporal hits in maintainability for faster hardware enablement
> or whatnot; however, we can't do that without trust that the people
> dumping stuff which needs later cleanups would actually help.
> Unfortnately, I have close to zero trust given the recent developments
> and your "it's not fair, that's not my responsibility" attitude
> clearly confirms the conclusion.
> 
> So, please take long look at how you perceive upstream development.
> It's a collaborative process.  Other people don't owe you by default.

Please refrain from adding quotation marks around things I didn't
actually say. I didn't say that this whole process was unfair. I was
pertaining to the fact that requesting that a driver is converted to a
non-existing API was wrong. As it currently stands the driver uses the
correct one. I also said that I'd happily convert it over when the
clean-ups are actually applied.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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