Re: [PATCH 1/4] usb: musb: Call atomic_notifier_call_chain when status is changed

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <martinez.javier@gmail.com>
Cc: "Pali Rohár" <pali.rohar@gmail.com>,
	"Felipe Balbi" <balbi@ti.com>, "Tony Lindgren" <tony@atomide.com>,
	"Anton Vorontsov" <anton@enomsg.org>,
	"Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	freemangordon@abv.bg, "Aaro Koskinen" <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
	"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] usb: musb: Call atomic_notifier_call_chain when status is changed
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:22:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130918142203.GD3748@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAwP0s0nGthkm9Bp1ug23Rtz6-sbR60FFTSfd-Cj9wKMU0RBEA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!

> >> >> > So will you do that? Or it is needed to resend this one line
> >> >> > hunk again in new email again?
> >> >>
> >> >> new patch, new email
> >> >
> >> > Guys, WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID AND ARROGANT?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry but, need to copy full isolated patch/hunk from one mail to
> >> > another is hassling. So what you want from me? Do all those non
> >> > sense working only because yesterday you had bad day? Or what?
...
> > Actually, there is need to be rude, because Felipe fails to act as
> > maintainer. Instead of fixing bugs in his code, he bounces bugfix
> > patches, points people to random READMEs and wastes everyones time.
> 
> I don't know what are you talking about (if that happened in another
> thread then I need more context). Felipe is not bouncing any bugfix

Take a look here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/17/286

I clearly state that patch can not be tested as required for "proper"
submission, but offer patch anyway. I get irrelevant boilerplate on
patch format.

> but just asked to split the patch in two since the patch was solving
> two separate issues so is way better to have it in two separate
> patches for the reasons I explained before.
> 
> So, as far as I can tell Felipe did exactly what I would expect from a
> maintainer. He took the time to review the patches sent to him and

I'd expect maintainer to, well, maintain code. It means actually
fixing bugs in his code, when he's pointed at them.

> gave feedback. If the sender doesn't want to take his feedback into
> account and prefer to send pretty insulting emails instead that is his
> choice but I would say that is this not the greatest approach to get
> your code merged (to say the least).

Clearly not. But Pali found bug in code Felipe should
maintain. Instead of "thank you for bug report, I applied this one
line of your code to fix it", Pali got "new patch, new email" for his
efforts. That is how you train dogs, not how you should treat kernel
contributors.

Now, it is possible that Felipe just has problems with english, as he
called me piece of wood in https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/17/476 , but
he appears more arogant than usual over email.

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html