linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] iio: light: add support for TI's opt3001 light sensor

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: <20140929194530.GD1939@saruman>
Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:45:30 -0500
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
CC:	<balbi@...com>, Michael Welling <mwelling@...e.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] iio: light: add support for TI's opt3001 light
 sensor

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:07:32PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:38:56PM -0500, Michael Welling wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:02:27AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> > Alright, this is already ridiculous. Andrew, if I resend the patch can
> >> > you apply it since maintainer has been ignoring this thread anyway ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you reall think this is the best way to approach this?
> >
> > when maintainer doesn't respond for weeks, yeah! Sure it is.
> 
> This is ridiculous! Jonathan asked you some questions about the implementation,
> but you ignored the request. Instead you've send 9 ping emails!

I ignored ? I replied straight away asking him to tell me exactly what
he needed and pointing out all the things which he's complaining about
that he asked me to get rid of himself. For example, original driver was
using devm_*, Jonathan asked to remove, I tried arguing and he said he
wanted them out, so I removed, now he's asking me why I didn't use
devm_* to start with.

That's ridiculous, that's what pointless and a total waste of time.

Not to mention that there was a long hiatus from Jonathan for weeks
until he said "yeah, sorry, I had forgotten about this". Because of
Jonathan alone, we lost a merge window. I send the original driver
because v3.17-rc1 was even tagged and now you tell me that it's
ridiculous I'm upset with Jonathan's lazy responses ?

gimme a break

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)