From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:03:18 -0400 Message-ID: <55F02006.5020504@redhat.com> References: <1441729478-19375-1-git-send-email-dledford@redhat.com> <55EFA2BF.7060006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xhXPa3iIPi6HPWSGKVc0uelHqdtgV4cjX" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Matan Barak , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Jiri Pirko , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xhXPa3iIPi6HPWSGKVc0uelHqdtgV4cjX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Side note: it's very annoying to have Time Warner Cable decide to take your internet down in the middle of writing a reply :-/ On 09/08/2015 11:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Doug Ledford wrot= e: >> >> 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." >=20 > So quite frankly, Stephen does a really good job at merging and most > of his merges are very on point. He's been doing a lot of them as part > of linux-next, and has seen more conflicts than just about anybody > else. >=20 > But I think to him it's mostly just an issue of "get the right end > result". I don't think he goes: "this merge conflict is a result of a > breakdown of the development process". >=20 > Conversely, to me, one of the main reasons I want to do those merges > is exactly because I think conflicts are more about the development > process issues than about "just getting the right end result". Yes, > obviously I want to get the rigth end result too, but I very much > react to how/why the conflict happened in the first place. The end > result is _almost_ secondary, although 99% of the time the primary > issue doesn't really even raise its head. >=20 > So I'm upset not because the conflict is hard to resolve (it isn't), > but because I feel this was really badly handled. >=20 > Yes, the fact that Mellanox people sent two different patches to two > different maintainers that did the same thing in two different ways is > odd. Matan and Jiri are cc'd, and I think that whole thing just smells > really bad. >=20 > But at the same time, I expect more of maintainers, and I don't see > any sign that David and the networking people were notified about the > _other_ patch to _their_ subsystem. Me telling Matan to Cc: netdev on patches related to their subsystem: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-rdma&m=3D143398479529819&w=3D4 Above was v5 of the patchset. Both the v6 and v7 of the patchset had netdev Cc:ed on the cover letter and at least the first three patches. Here's the v7 cover and the first three patches in the netdev archives: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143827046913908&w=3D4 http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143827047413915&w=3D4 http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143827052913936&w=3D4 http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143827055013953&w=3D4 Here I am saying I've pulled the patchset in in the netdev archives: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143834704701705&w=3D4 Here Jason Gunthorpe is asking me if I was going to take netdev stuff without an ack from netdev in the netdev archives: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143836033706501&w=3D4 And here is my response to Jason, again, in the netdev archives: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D143836450808174&w=3D4 Here is the initial notification from Stephen on the merge conflict: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-next&m=3D144072523831647&w=3D4 Here's is Jiri's response (on linux-netdev, but according to my records also direct Cc: Dave Miller): http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-netdev&m=3D144074372902869&w=3D4 > The fact that you weren't aware of the other patch in the networking > subsystem is kind of to be expected. You're not the network > maintainer, so why would you? But exactly because you're not the > networking maintainer, I would have expected you to check with him > when you apply patches to generic networking code. See above. This was done. > This time it conflicted, and I noticed, and I went "this is not how > kernel development is supposed to go". I didn't switch up for the newer patch, that didn't help. But otherwise, I did what was needed. > But say that the other networking patch hadn't even existed: in that > case I *still* shouldn't have gotten a patch to net/core/dev.c from > you without any sign that David had ack'ed it (or at the very least > been notified, even if he hadn't reacted). And such a thing wouldn't have happened. > See? I see perfectly well Linus. I am not new to engineering. You have stated several times that I'm missing the point, or do I see your point, please understand mine: I *did* the things you are assuming I didn't do. The record is in the public archives. I didn't make a big deal about it because it *isn't* a big deal unless you assume that I'm running around nilly-willy throwing shit at the wall and hoping to make a painting. As I knew very well that's not what I'm doing, *I* didn't have those assumptions, and therefore I didn't think this merge fixup was a big deal. As the efforts to bring this to the network maintainer's attention is in the record above, you will likewise find if you talk to Greg K-H that I worked with him both publicly and privately on the changes I made in the drivers/staging area. I do now how to keep responsible parties informed when I'm working in their domain. --=20 Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD --xhXPa3iIPi6HPWSGKVc0uelHqdtgV4cjX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV8CANAAoJELgmozMOVy/da1cP/0mwvcZ3vlRv/Sx+Fg67nEWe l8YI5ocsijOXaAQYMhtp5dpemnDAqxf1npwc/xxpjM7Lo8BiiS0n1fX8usOprdHg /co83g+YILe/qQLCa9KVbzlysxZQHsf7xbmXlUzZhb90MZBH0jGzu2XTEJIIrr/G wTkb1MPjU+DBmv8mmkv44z5JnDXn7YOCnB3K8JTJMO54WO3kiWMYLczqhFfHiSf3 GjdMeANU9d9On4bwZadXdgYe40nHZ6tVBisVjxAr/YjkAh4JZkwUO+qmnHvtBv1I /LkJNd/Z37rCycY3N5IFDuj2F4pH900+b77azG4srIUJiIoFDz+7W7w26eSTeDl1 a22kx6D6FYMfqn4cAWyPuBpPpH2gHrsZ3WVmQvhoozzQ5vtpJmUBKKlynSSjIxtX bEMsEYxEoqU3FcKrOtrVVCx9s3AzJkzPre6lMxDgjE7MSmjL9etd/Gy8aHrQmqUf wmX6vJZRdBn0WYB/VfUiJr9hPUzrQ7GeoDduGVUB/hPPskAAUveZy/r6GyQ4Xj8c fmpeqIBIIZs6IEm9oUb3rYeJXI9Fp54N2oyxlI7OcsEqe3VO4rdO34cXN/9+OIBD 2S4hF0cgR/FlRrtxP0zkyeUjQnspFQfnI3B96V8BX3LvnMD5RVhCmK+Iy2NhE5dP CDr8dQd7Niy1F8aO6zXk =jqMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xhXPa3iIPi6HPWSGKVc0uelHqdtgV4cjX-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html