[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20201002.152925.826224771231840847.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: colyli@...e.de
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chaitanya.kulkarni@....com,
cleech@...hat.com, hch@....de, amwang@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, hare@...e.de, idryomov@...il.com,
jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
lduncan@...e.com, michaelc@...wisc.edu,
mskorzhinskiy@...arflare.com, philipp.reisner@...bit.com,
sagi@...mberg.me, vvs@...tuozzo.com, vbabka@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] Introduce sendpage_ok() to detect misused
sendpage in network related drivers
From: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:30:12 +0800
> Obviously my fault and no excuse for leaking this uncompleted version to
> you. I just re-post a v10 version which I make sure all patches are the
> latest version.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you in advance for taking this set.
How did this happen?
How did you functionally test the patch set if it didn't even compile?
I want you to explain why you sent a completely untested patch set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists