[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910150910.GS5565@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:09:10 +0300
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 04:47:20PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?!?
But it is a patch, and if it happens to get accepted as is so be
it. If not, it's a good place where to start the conversation on
how to fix the bug in another way.
You guys seem to have a notion that anything which says '[PATCH]'
is somehow final. In my book any patch is up for debate. Nothing
special about this one in that regard.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists