From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965384AbaLMGSK (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:18:10 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:63780 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965339AbaLMGSI (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:18:08 -0500 Message-ID: <548BDA11.1030707@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 07:17:53 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: Sergei Shtylyov , Paul Mackerras , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] net-PPP: Deletion of a few unnecessary checks References: <548B1E44.6050005@users.sourceforge.net> <20141212.115922.687789059853236747.davem@davemloft.net> <548B2468.5050402@users.sourceforge.net> <20141212.150741.2169710971698369167.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20141212.150741.2169710971698369167.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:k3Y13x50WwK7+/jvzlcXn3c4c+Fxu2NLONfU/aluC4Zl9K+usJq VTCVUw5cBDTUjXh2ALlJ4qoSTXtwB4cfGTHfC1ne9ICp2yXjU86EIEB8AswvKYwWIljJ1pg udGhVjbO34CY5lS/PPxiVf1mf8AXG8ikFDtxy8xa8PkRc268gA8ZjLh39kWKQkyXPzk4U+m 5Sabh0GDJuhNiQV6ZsF/A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I'd like to honestly ask why you are being so difficult? There are several factors which contribute to your perception of difficulty here. 1. I try to extract from every feedback the information about the amount of acceptance or rejection for a specific update suggestion. A terse feedback (like yours for this issue) makes it occasionally harder to see the next useful steps. So another constructive discussion is evolving around the clarification of some implementation details. 2. I prefer also different communication styles at some points. 3. I reached a point where the desired software updates were not immediately obvious for me while other contributors might have achieved a better understanding for the affected issues already. 4. I am on the way at the moment to get my Linux software development system running again. https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/503327-System-startup-does-not-continue-after-hard-disk-detection > Everyone gets their code reviewed, everyone has to modify their > changes to adhere to the subsystem maintainer's wishes. That is fine as usual. > You are not being treated specially, and quite frankly nobody > is asking anything unreasonable of you. That is also true as the software development process will be continued. Regards, Markus