On 09/08/2015 08:35 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> This needs a good explanation, because for now this pull request is dead to me. > > Just to clarify: it's really the combination of: > > (a) you were told about this With a comment that said "I can carry this merge forward, no further action is necessary on your part". That combined with my lack of deep internal knowledge of what it is that Stephen is doing made me go "Ok, he says don't do anything, so I won't change it." > (b) you rebased your commit series after it Yes. I rebased my tree a bunch of times. I keep two different git repos. The one on kernel.org and one on github. I rebase the one on github. I don't rebase the one on kernel.org. I had *thought* that Stephen had pointed the for-next setup at my kernel.org stuff, but he evidently has it pointed at my github setup. That's something I need to address with Stephen. > (c) you didn't fix it and never even mentioned the issue Because I thought it was handled. > that makes me just go "I want to have absolutely nothing to do with > this disaster area of a pull request". > > The conflict itself? Big deal. Conflicts happen. But that patch > shouldn't have gone through your tree in the first place, and it damn > well should have had an ack from David or something if it did. I agree. The entire patch series that this patch came from went through about v7 during review process. The early versions had the patch mixed in amongst the others and no Cc: to netdev. I specifically requested that all of the netdev related patches be sent to netdev (they were), and I had every intention of making sure that Dave acked the patch. Until Stephen's setup caught the two identical patches, resolved it in favor of Dave's tree's patch, rendering the issue moot. > And the *same* company sent two different patches for the same thing > to two different submaintainers? WTF guys? > > Kernel development isn't a sport where you throw shit on the wall to > see what sticks. > > This could have been done correctly. You could have cc'd David, and > you could also have just said "sorry, there's a conflict due to me > taking a different version of a patch that also went through the > networking tree". Or you could have tried to synchronize to begin > with, and just used the same version of the patch from day one. Or if > you had to rebase your patch series (why was that done, anyway?) you > could just have fixed it to do what the networking tree already did. > > So this could have been done so much better in many ways. But none of > that happened. > > Cross-subsystem conflicts do happen, and patches that cross said > subsystems aren't evil per se. I have lost count of how many conflicts > I've resolved in just this merge window. I do it all the time. But > this one made me just go "Eww". > > The rebase and the complete lack of communication here just makes me angry. As mentioned in my previous email, the rebase is because Stephen is pointing at my github repo and not my k.o repo. The lack of communication is because I thought it was handled and didn't need to be flagged additionally. -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD