From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:33:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1441729478-19375-1-git-send-email-dledford@redhat.com> <55EFA2BF.7060006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55EFA2BF.7060006-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Matan Barak , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Jiri Pirko , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > 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." 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. 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". 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. So I'm upset not because the conflict is hard to resolve (it isn't), but because I feel this was really badly handled. 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. 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. 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. This time it conflicted, and I noticed, and I went "this is not how kernel development is supposed to go". 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). See? Linus -- 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