netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/9] phy: phy-ocelot-serdes: add ability to be used in a non-syscon configuration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 11:14:30 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/9] phy: phy-ocelot-serdes: add ability to
 be used in a non-syscon configuration

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 11:08:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:26:58AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 04:41:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:34:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > Once again netdev seems to have applied patches from other subsystems
> > > > > > > without review/ack.  What makes netdev different to any other kernel
> > > > > > > subsystem?  What would happen if other random maintainers started
> > > > > > > applying netdev patches without appropriate review?  I suspect someone
> > > > > > > would become understandably grumpy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why again are you addressing your whinge to me? I'm not one of the
> > > > > > netdev maintainers, but I've pointed out what happens in netdev
> > > > > > land. However, you seem to *not* want to discuss it directly with
> > > > > > DaveM/Jakub/Paolo - as illustrated again with yet another response
> > > > > > to *me* rather than addressing your concerns *to* the people who
> > > > > > you have an issue with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not communication. Effectively, this is sniping, because
> > > > > > rather than discussing it with the individuals concerned, you are
> > > > > > instead preferring to discuss it with others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please stop this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read the above paragraph again.
> > > >
> > > > You sent your email _TO_ me, that means you addressed your comments
> > > > primarily _to_ me. RFC2822:
> > > >
> > > >    The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary recipient(s)
> > > >    of the message.
> > > >
> > > >    The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in the sense of
> > > >    making a copy on a typewriter using carbon paper) contains the
> > > >    addresses of others who are to receive the message, though the
> > > >    content of the message may not be directed at them.
> > >
> > > You're over-thinking it.  I replied to all.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this entire situation and there's something
> > that summarises it. Kettle. Pot. Black.
> >
> > You complain about how netdev is run, but you also complain about how
> > people interpret your emails.
> >
> > Sorry, but no. I think you need to be more accomodating towards how
> > others perceive your emails, especially when there are widespread
> > accepted conventions. The fact that you are seemingly not even willing
> > to entertain that someone _might_ interpret your emails according to
> > standard normals is frankly a problem for you.
> 
> This conversion has gone completely off-track.
> 
> If you wish to continue talking about email headers offline (instead of
> filling people's inboxes with unrelated ramblings), you know where to
> find me.

I would prefer not to. I would much prefer it that if _you_ have a
problem with how netdev operates, that _you_ talk directly _to_ the
netdev maintainers, rather than latching on to one of my emails and
replying to it. That is a reasonable request that _you_ appear to be
completely immune to comprehending, instead wishing to effectively
tell me that I'm wrong to request that - and start this idiotic
thread to debate it.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!