Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:43:07 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
> >>> interacted with writeback.  It's not new, it was one of the major 
> things
> >>> brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this.
> >  ...
> >> 
> >> [citation needed]
> >
> > Really?  I was there; I remember and it's in my notes of the discussion.
> > However, it's also in Jon's at paragraph 6 if you need to refer to
> > something to refresh your memory.
> 
> You have such a wonderfully charismatic way of providing citations.

Well, it's factual, as I presume you have now discovered.

> > However, when it was spotted isn't the issue; how we add tux3 without a
> > large maintenance burden on writeback is, as I carefully explained in
> > the rest of the email you cut.
> 
> You are doing a fine job of proving to the world that LKML has become
> a toxic waste dump. CC to LKML removed for obvious reasons.

Please don't drop the Mailing list cc; that's where the debate actually
happens and where others can see it.

>  Please let this be the end of the unhelpful rhetoric that does none of us any
> good, especially you.

Telling you factually what the issue is isn't rhetoric.  Your Ad Hominem
reply, of course, is rhetoric but I don't need to bother engaging with
your rhetorical technique because I'm still arguing the facts: proving
that page forking can be integrated into writeback without adding to the
maintenance burden is a big issue for tux3.  We're all still waiting for
the patches you were going to produce showing how this could be done.

James