Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I questioned it on November 15, in:
> > 	Message-ID: <20121116000118.GA8693@kroah.com>
> > 
> > Just ignoring that long response is acceptable?  Really?  I didn't ask
> > enough questions in that review?  I see obvious comments in there that
> > were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch
> > (typedefs for u32?  No c99 initializers?)
> 
> Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain
> why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;)
> 
> Mind resending it, please? 

Now resent.