From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932511Ab2KZXgx (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:36:53 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([208.91.2.12]:54440 "EHLO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757337Ab2KZXgx (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:36:53 -0500 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Greg KH Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, George Zhang , 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 15:36:52 -0800 Message-ID: <4072068.8FbmJn8R3Z@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> Organization: VMware, Inc. User-Agent: KMail/4.9.2 (Linux/3.7.0-rc6+; KDE/4.9.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20121126232357.GA21664@kroah.com> References: <20121121202625.13252.86346.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com> <1975718.7UL0qBEfzR@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> <20121126232357.GA21664@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > Also, how was I to know that those 3 comments above were addressed? > When someone posts questions and comments, please respond to those > comments. Don't just not respond at all and post the whole series 2 > weeks later with things changed and a vague comment of "summary of > changes" in the 00 message. Otherwise I will assume that you never even > saw my post. I thought "Sparse clean" and "Checkpatch clean with one exception ..." are concrete enough, but I am open to improving the messaging. What would you like us to say? > > In other words, if someone takes the time to review and post comments, > the least you can do is acknowledge those comments, right? We did not want to litter mailing lists with "OK" responses, but will do in the future. Thanks, Dmitry