[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231108234322.31980c5f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 23:43:22 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jon.grimm@....com,
bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
krypton@...ich-teichert.org, David.Laight@...lab.com,
richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond_resched()
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:19:55 +0800
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:08:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > A "Nack" with no commentary is completely useless and borderline offensive.
>
> Well you just sent me an email out of the blue, with zero context
> about what you were doing, and you're complaining to me about giving
> your a curt response?
First, I didn't send the email, and your "Nack" wasn't directed at me.
Second, with lore and lei, it's trivial today to find the cover letter from
the message id. But I get it. It's annoying when you have to do that.
>
> > What is your rationale for the Nack?
>
> Next time perhaps consider sending the cover letter and the important
> patches to everyone rather than the mailing list.
Then that is how you should have responded. I see other maintainers respond
as such. A "Nack" is still meaningless. You could have responded with:
"What is this? And why are you doing it?"
Which is a much better and a more meaningful response than a "Nack".
>
> > The cond_resched() is going away if the patches earlier in the series gets
> > implemented. So either it is removed from your code, or it will become a
> > nop, and just wasting bits in the source tree. Your choice.
>
> This is exactly what I should have received.
Which is why I replied, as the original email author is still new at this,
but is learning.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists