From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@samfundet.no>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 17:27:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160907162713.GC4921@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160907160733.GO1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:08:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > It got sent for REVIEW COMMENTS and TESTING for people like Robert
> > > Jarzmik and Adam, to get some sense as to the _entire_ series
> > > acceptability to people. This is a _massive_ series, and it's still
> > > growing. The series is now at more than 100 patches.
> >
> > We've already covered the fact that you should have sent it as an
> > [RFC]. None of this would have happened if you'd done so. Let's
> > leave it at that.
>
> I wonder if you realise, or even known, given your relative inexperience,
> that many people actually _ignore_ patches with a RFC tag, and provide
> no review or comments against them.
That's their prerogative. I would take that to mean that the set is
reasonable, and would subsequently follow up with a full submission.
No problem there.
> Remember, by your own admission,
> there's twenty years experience difference between us.
True. And times have changed a lot since the 'good ol' days'. I
guess for you this means a lot less freedom than you're used to which
I'm truly sorry about. However, the processes I (and most of the guys
I work with, including your besty LinusW) are in place for the better.
> I'm going to take one last issue with your comments:
>
> > That's the problem, it was not clear, at all. You said you "could
> > have arguably applied it earlier in the set". But without knowing
> > that this wasn't a stand-alone set (how could I, you didn't mention
> > that), what does the really mean?
>
> So by your own admission, you weren't sure of the understanding, and
> from the extract of your mailbox that you kindly provided earlier in
> your reply:
>
> > 30 2016 Russell King - AR ( 0) [PATCH 0/8] SA11x0/PXA remainder & cleanups
> > 30 2016 Russell King ( 0) └>[PATCH 1/8] mfd: ucb1x00: allow IRQ probing to work with IRQs > 32
>
> if that's all you saw, "earlier in the set" in the first message
> wouldn't make any sense, and should've set alarm bells ringing that
> something had gone wrong, or you were without complete information.
>
> The reasonable thing to have done - especially by your own admission
> that you found it confusing - would have been to ask for clarification.
> You did not, you chose after just one hour (again, your admission) to
> apply the patch.
If I queried every little oddity I read in commit messages and cover
letters, it would either eat up all of my time, ensuring that I am not
functional as an Engineer or Maintainer, or it would drive me to
distraction where I would subsequently end up in some kind of asylum.
Last time; "I see no issue with the way I operated given the
information that was provided."
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-07 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-06 13:03 [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-06 13:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-06 13:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-06 15:45 ` Lee Jones
2016-09-06 16:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-07 10:27 ` Lee Jones
2016-09-07 11:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-07 12:48 ` Lee Jones
2016-09-07 13:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-07 15:08 ` Lee Jones
2016-09-07 16:07 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-07 16:27 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2016-09-07 16:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
[not found] ` <1473265954.29864.15.camel@perches.com>
[not found] ` <20160907163854.GE4921@dell>
2016-09-07 19:47 ` rfc: Updating SubmittingPatches with [RFC PATCH] and/or [WIP PATCH] Joe Perches
2016-09-07 21:49 ` Randy Dunlap
2016-09-14 19:03 ` Jonathan Corbet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160907162713.GC4921@dell \
--to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=egtvedt@samfundet.no \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).