[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgReqMNHT8Y8W0jdbnhZBqsY3Omga8wYQJ-yVRumzSDwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 09:09:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] smb3 client fixes
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 09:00, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I can remove that and resend, handling special files properly can be
> important (and there is a much more important patch being reviewed for
> fixing some symlink corner cases) but SMB1 is much lower priority.
So honestly, if you had explained it as such, I would have taken a
look and gone "Ok, I don't care, this area hasn't been a problem".
But instead, it was sold as fixes, and I went "that looks odd". So I
had to go explore, and decided that it looked decidedly like new
development.
End result: now there is no way in hell that I'm pulling that thing.
Trying to sneak things in is not ok. Claiming things are "fixes" when
they aren't, and me having to figure that out just makes me unhappy.
Just be honest about these things.
Sure, I don't always check, because smb hasn't been a problem, and
maybe you've done this hundreds of times before.
But that's also exactly the problem: now I feel like I can't trust
your explanations because they seem to be whitewashing what is
actually going on.
So instead of a "let it go", it's now a "I guess I will have to waste
time on these things because I feel like I have to double-check what
Steve sends me".
Which is what neither of us wants, but here we are.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists