[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7OrtnPuNX+qa_o4MArL2Sc8T9jALp5tyQYFMv4dxUeF7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:17:12 -0700
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Dominick Grift <dac.override@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious RCU usage in bridge with Linux v4.0-9362-g1fc149933fd4
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 14:38 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> Compile-test only patch is never ready for review, I thought it is too obvious
>> to mention.
>
> Thats not relevant.
>
> Obvious or not, you are not making things easy for reviewers.
>
Why should I make a NOT-ready-for-review patch easy for reviewers?
What's the point here? I don't have the right to choose my patch NOT
to be reviewed? Huh...
> Our time is precious too, even if you believe its a minor detail.
>
> If you don't care for our feedback, send private patches.
Not until it is ready, apparently.
>
> When I hit 'Reply' to your mail, I don't have the patch available at
> hand, and need to copy/paste it.
That is EXACTLY what I want, because it is NOT READY FOR REVIEW.
>
> Surely I am not alone.
>
> Surely you can change the way you provide patches, even if they are in
> RFC state.
If every patch in this mailing list has to be ready, yes.
Otherwise no, sometimes we do need a patch (or a diff if it is a better name)
ONLY for discussion, aka, NOT for review.
>
> If you don't have time, just ignore these bug reports, and do whatever
> you need to, nobody will complain.
>
Apparently you did nothing before I just sent a reply without a patch,
only patch draws your attention for some reason, I _guess_ you only
rush for patches.
--
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