Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, George Zhang <georgezhang@vmware.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:44:26 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121126234426.GA12191@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4072068.8FbmJn8R3Z@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com>

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote:
> > > > > * * *
> > > > > This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate
> > > > > from
> > > > > VMware.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Summary of changes:
> > > > > 	- Sparse clean.
> > > > > 	- Checkpatch clean with one exception, a "complex macro" in
> > > > > 	
> > > > > 	  which we can't add parentheses.
> > > > > 	
> > > > > 	- Remove all runtime assertions.
> > > > > 	- Fix device name, so that existing user clients work.
> > > > > 	- Fix VMCI handle lookup.
> > > > 
> > > > Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you
> > > > posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for,
> > > > I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.)
> > > > 
> > > > And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy...
> > > > 
> > > > My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try
> > > > again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the
> > > > questions and comments I made.
> > > 
> > > Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you:
> > > 
> > > 1. "Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these
> > > "asserts", right?  Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON()
> > > calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from
> > > a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it."
> > > 
> > > 2. "You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file"
> > > 
> > > 3. "This line causes sparse to complain.  The odds that userspace knows
> > > what gcc is using for "bool" is pretty low."
> > > 
> > > Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why
> > > you would be grumpy.
> > 
> > You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which
> > repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it
> > was posted.)  That is what I am referring to here.  None of those
> > questions were addressed.
> 
> That one was explicitly acknowledged in
> <20121030052234.GH32055@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> and fixed in series
> posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not
> mention it again.

I questioned it on November 15, in:
	Message-ID: <20121116000118.GA8693@kroah.com>

Just ignoring that long response is acceptable?  Really?  I didn't ask
enough questions in that review?  I see obvious comments in there that
were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch
(typedefs for u32?  No c99 initializers?)

And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions?

Also, please start numbering the submissions, this having to reference
them by date is going to cause us all to get even more confused quicker.

greg k-h