[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C308DBEA-8D08-47EF-AFC9-B0D3B95AD61B@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:48:39 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>, "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/29] x86: Support Intel Advanced Matrix Extensions
On Oct 2, 2021, at 18:05, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01 2021 at 22:50, Chang Seok Bae wrote:
>> Sending this version as it follows up the discussion [1] with some code
>> changes from v10. This is not intended to ignore your comment on v10 at all.
>> Appreciate your points on my oversights that I will address in v12 soon.
>
> why on earth did you make Chang send these patches out when there are
> fundamental review comments on the fly vs. the previous version?
My apologies. I regret sending v11 as fundamental rework is going on, that you
shared in the other mail [1].
Also, perhaps it might be a better way to separate the last patch in
particular. Soak out with more eyes on it, then send it as RFC at best IMO.
I would think right now to focus on helping your rework and addressing what
you pointed out on v10 patches. I will revisit the last patch later.
Thanks,
Chang
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/878rz9gdbb.ffs@tglx/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists