From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760532Ab2C3JMB (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:12:01 -0400 Received: from s15943758.onlinehome-server.info ([217.160.130.188]:41296 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759788Ab2C3JLy (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:11:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:11:46 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Greg K H , Linux Edac Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] edac: rewrite the sysfs code to use struct device Message-ID: <20120330091146.GB29854@aftab> References: <1333040821-6253-1-git-send-email-mchehab@redhat.com> <1333040821-6253-2-git-send-email-mchehab@redhat.com> <20120329220300.GA16491@kroah.com> <4F74EDEC.5020804@redhat.com> <20120329234037.GA16094@kroah.com> <4F7516B3.8070505@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F7516B3.8070505@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:13:07PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > However, every time this patch series is submitted, someone come up with a > bright idea to ask me to add more work to the scope, delaying its addition > forever. > > While I'm not convinced that moving from a single memory allocation into a > series of k*alloc is a good thing for a subsystem that is there to detect > memory errors (as having everything altogether into a single page can > reduce the chances of errors at the EDAC data), I can work latter on a > patchset to fix this issue for EDAC MC, but I'll do it only after merging > this series, as it is counter-productive to do it otherwise, having to > repeat the same set of tests on 10 machines (and compile the entire series > of patches on 8 different archs/sub-archs). > > So, I really want to move this ahead. So, please, first things first: let's > first fix the more serious bug. Then, we can fix the other minor stuff > that aren't so far causing any noticeable harm. Dude, stop complaining - this is the kernel not some pet project of yours. You either do things right or you don't do them at all. Others have to do the same iterations with patches and intergrate maintainer change requests until everything is done properly. Btw, this patch is 5 files changed, 432 insertions(+), 717 deletions(-) It is 1500+ lines and huuuuge! How do you think anyone can review this? Also, I told already: if you wanna fix one thing, then fix it with a smaller patchset which easier to review by people instead of throwing at them humongous patch bombs which are supposed to fix _everything_ and expecting everyone to understand immediately what you mean. And don't tell me these huge patches cannot be split, I'm not buying it. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551