Message-ID: <20220718142505.3shv2rwe4fakgsp2@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:25:05 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the second RFC, I stated:
> 
> "Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
> included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
> no one has any opinions on them?"
> 
> Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
> not just the two people in the To: header.
(...)
> This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
> "default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
> (a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
> appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
> and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.
> 
> This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
> an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

Please stop shoving quotes of your questions in my face, I'm still glad
I deleted my draft responses to them when they were originally asked,
because *when* (not *if*) things will have went sideways, I would have
blamed myself for people wanting to test/respond but not having whom to
talk to, because you rage quit.

You need to understand that a voluntary reviewer doesn't have a duty to
respond to you on any certain date, and that I'm not obliged to shut up
about where to place "default_interface" because I haven't said anything
about it in the first N series. I was on the fence whether it was even
worth saying anything about it at all, and the only reason I decided to
do it was because the patch to change every DSA driver's phylink_get_caps()
prototype now conflicts with concurrent changes done to drivers, and
doesn't apply to net-next anyway:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1oCNl3-006e3n-PT@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/
So I really can't be reasonably accused of wanting to stall this series.

You have no reason whatsoever to pick a fight with me, so please stop it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists