linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ahci: st: Add support for ST's SATA IP

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: <20140219174041.GK10504@lee--X1>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:40:41 +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

> A few more things just in case.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:39:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > It tells me that Hans has more spare time than I do.
> 
> This is the crux of the problem, isn't it?  The party who is creating
> load should also partake in and invest resource into making the
> infrastructure for it.  What I can't understand is how one can claim
> "unfairness" at having to contribute to such effort when that is
> clearly the party which is the primary beneficiary of the added load.
> If you have *any* mature sense of fairness, not this childish "it's
> not going my way", the irony should be clear to you.
> 
> > This work would even be something I'd be interested in helping out
> > with - even in my own time, but the way you speak to people doesn't
> > exactly inspire them to go out of my way to work with you does it?
> 
> Given the circumstances, I don't think depending on good wills of the
> involved parties is a viable strategy and wanted to make it clear that
> the responsibility of chipping in for long term maintainability is on
> everyone who wants to make use of the code base.  This is beyond good
> will.  It's the fundamental sharing of responsibility for
> sustainability.  I'd love to have good will but I can't build that on
> top of a notion as rotten as "it's not fair, it's not my
> responsibility".
> 
> > 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.
> 
> If I apply your patch now, Hans has one more driver to worry about in
> doing the work that he himself isn't directly benefiting from but
> everybody needs.  In what world is that fair?
> 
> So, sorry about going f bomb on you, but you shouldn't be thinking
> what you're thinking.  There's some serious misguidance going on
> there.

Have you listened to a word I've said? Or have you managed to get your
self all tangled up in what you _assumed_ was meant by the 3 words I
mentioned about fairness at the very start of this conversation? Me
thinks the latter might be true.

Just because I don't contribute to your subsystem, it doesn't mean I
don't contribute elsewhere.

Here... let me help you down from that big horse! ;)

-- 
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/