From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932134AbbDOIyu (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 04:54:50 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56096 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752072AbbDOIyo (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 04:54:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:54:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Greg Kroah-Hartman cc: Borislav Petkov , Al Viro , Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , One Thousand Gnomes , Tom Gundersen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Mack , David Herrmann , Djalal Harouni Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20150415084440.GF16381@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20150413204547.GB1760@kroah.com> <20150414175019.GA2874@kroah.com> <20150414192357.GA6107@kroah.com> <20150414192429.GC26075@pd.tnic> <20150414193229.GB6107@kroah.com> <20150414194004.GG889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150414194804.GB7540@kroah.com> <20150414195336.GG14069@pd.tnic> <20150415084440.GF16381@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > If you have a technical reason for why this code shouldn't be merged, > great, please let me know and we can work to address that. Andy and Al > have spent time reviewing and giving us comments, and that's wonderful > and valuable and is why I treat their comments seriously. If you are > interested in the code, please review it, otherwise I don't see what > this adds to the conversation at all, do you? You've actually touched another issue I see here, and that is -- the code is complex like crazy. I've spent big part of past two days trying to get my head around it, but I am still far away from getting at least the 1000 miles overview of how exactly the message passing is designed. I understand that the primary reason for this complexity is probably the dbus protocol specification itself. But the problem really is that I don't think you've received even a single Reviewed-by: from someone who hasn't been directly involved in developing the code, right? For something that's potentially such a core mechanism as a completely new, massively-adopted IPC, this does send a warning singal. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs