[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910144720.GA28349@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:47:20 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:07:10PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> You're reading way too much into this. The revert is just a point to
> start the conversion. I've found that it's the best way to get the
> attention of the relevant developers. Other kind of regression
> reports have an unfortunate habit of disappearing into /dev/null.
That's some strange "logic".
You're sending a patch which has "[PATCH]" in the subject but now you
say it is not really a patch but only a way to get people's attention?!?
And nothing in it says so anywhere - it looks like an actual patch and
all.
If you do that a couple of times I'm afraid the opposite might happen -
such "patches" would get ignored completely.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists