From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:19:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313083630.GA10131@elte.hu> <20120313084713.GB27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313085628.GB6991@elte.hu> <20120313090040.GE27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313092649.GA15406@elte.hu> <20120313095020.GA13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:52600 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030191Ab2CMKTZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:19:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313095020.GA13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra * Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:26:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary - > > but if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free > > to pull the patch from tip:sched/arch: > > Nope, I'm not taking the tree anymore, [...] So instead of saying "sure, lets avoid conflicts next time around" you are now *refusing* to take technically perfectly fine patches just because another maintainer asked you to use a different workflow for future patches? Wow ... Regardless of the imperfect workflow I certainly find Catalin's work useful technically, so I'll send his preparatory commit to Linus in this merge window - I hope you will see sense later and won't block his subsequent ARM patches... > [...] you've refused to behave in a reasonable way. Your > problem to sort out now. For the record, that's utter nonsense: - *You* failed to reply on the public thread to sort this out properly in the Git space, avoiding conflicts naturally: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232 While generally we don't mind conflicts, I do mind *avoidable* conflicts - and this was such a case. - *You* created a conflict by taking a tree that patched some rather old version of the scheduler, shortly before the merge window, when maintainer capacity is the shortest. PeterZ is a nice guy who will agree to just about any approach, but I'm quite sure he did not tell you to do *that* ;-) - *You* replied to me in a rather dismissive and increasingly obnoxious style when I inquired about it constructively: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/79 There were several easy solutions - I cannot believe that we are still arguing this: - it literally took me two minutes to create a proper Git solution, it's not rocket science. You could have done it, or I could have done it for you (as I have done it). - Or you could have replied to the public thread, explaining why that is not desirable. - Or you could have said "sure thing, lets do it that way next time around". Thanks, Ingo