[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a9vk3rqb.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:11:08 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, dhowells@...hat.com, manfred@...orfullife.com,
hughd@...gle.com, jmorris@...ei.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
sds@...ho.nsa.gov, devel@...nvz.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
cmetcalf@...era.com, linux-driver@...gic.com,
ron.mercer@...gic.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
eparis@...isplace.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jitendra.kalsaria@...gic.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
"Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace enhancements
Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
You ignored all of my feedback that the first 7 messages of your
patchset are unnecessary. In particular you did not attempt to focus
your patchset on those operations that are most important.
Upon examination it appears also that the 8th and 9th patches of the
patchset are also unnecessary. And the 10th patch is just a test of the
previous patches, making the 10th patch unneceesary without the rest.
In net this entire patchset is unnecessary and a waste of your reviewers
time.
Once you have IPC checkpoint and restore working there may be a point to
come back and optimize things. Please don't come back with any System V
Interprocess Communication patches until you can report how much time
is saved by each and every change.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists