From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ahci: st: Add support for ST's SATA IP Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:40:41 +0000 Message-ID: <20140219174041.GK10504@lee--X1> References: <1392641818-23419-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140218233645.GP31892@mtj.dyndns.org> <20140219083025.GB10504@lee--X1> <20140219140458.GA10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219150121.GG10504@lee--X1> <20140219150654.GH10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219152336.GH10504@lee--X1> <20140219153624.GI10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219163937.GI10504@lee--X1> <20140219172602.GL10134@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]:50852 "EHLO mail-we0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754164AbaBSRkz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:40:55 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so592634wes.21 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:40:54 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140219172602.GL10134@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexandre.torgue@st.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, hdegoede@redhat.com > A few more things just in case. >=20 > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:39:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > It tells me that Hans has more spare time than I do. >=20 > This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? The party who is creating > load should also partake in and invest resource into making the > infrastructure for it. What I can't understand is how one can claim > "unfairness" at having to contribute to such effort when that is > clearly the party which is the primary beneficiary of the added load. > If you have *any* mature sense of fairness, not this childish "it's > not going my way", the irony should be clear to you. >=20 > > This work would even be something I'd be interested in helping out > > with - even in my own time, but the way you speak to people doesn't > > exactly inspire them to go out of my way to work with you does it? >=20 > Given the circumstances, I don't think depending on good wills of the > involved parties is a viable strategy and wanted to make it clear tha= t > the responsibility of chipping in for long term maintainability is on > everyone who wants to make use of the code base. This is beyond good > will. It's the fundamental sharing of responsibility for > sustainability. I'd love to have good will but I can't build that on > top of a notion as rotten as "it's not fair, it's not my > responsibility". >=20 > > Again, that's not what I said. It's great that your subsystem is be= ing > > improved, but insisting that anyone who submits new code to rebase > > on top of some development patches which only exist in mail form, a= nd > > refusing to take patches until they do so doesn't seem right to me. >=20 > If I apply your patch now, Hans has one more driver to worry about in > doing the work that he himself isn't directly benefiting from but > everybody needs. In what world is that fair? >=20 > So, sorry about going f bomb on you, but you shouldn't be thinking > what you're thinking. There's some serious misguidance going on > there. Have you listened to a word I've said? Or have you managed to get your self all tangled up in what you _assumed_ was meant by the 3 words I mentioned about fairness at the very start of this conversation? Me thinks the latter might be true. Just because I don't contribute to your subsystem, it doesn't mean I don't contribute elsewhere. Here... let me help you down from that big horse! ;) --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:40:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ahci: st: Add support for ST's SATA IP In-Reply-To: <20140219172602.GL10134@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1392641818-23419-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140218233645.GP31892@mtj.dyndns.org> <20140219083025.GB10504@lee--X1> <20140219140458.GA10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219150121.GG10504@lee--X1> <20140219150654.GH10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219152336.GH10504@lee--X1> <20140219153624.GI10134@htj.dyndns.org> <20140219163937.GI10504@lee--X1> <20140219172602.GL10134@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20140219174041.GK10504@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > A few more things just in case. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:39:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > It tells me that Hans has more spare time than I do. > > This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? The party who is creating > load should also partake in and invest resource into making the > infrastructure for it. What I can't understand is how one can claim > "unfairness" at having to contribute to such effort when that is > clearly the party which is the primary beneficiary of the added load. > If you have *any* mature sense of fairness, not this childish "it's > not going my way", the irony should be clear to you. > > > This work would even be something I'd be interested in helping out > > with - even in my own time, but the way you speak to people doesn't > > exactly inspire them to go out of my way to work with you does it? > > Given the circumstances, I don't think depending on good wills of the > involved parties is a viable strategy and wanted to make it clear that > the responsibility of chipping in for long term maintainability is on > everyone who wants to make use of the code base. This is beyond good > will. It's the fundamental sharing of responsibility for > sustainability. I'd love to have good will but I can't build that on > top of a notion as rotten as "it's not fair, it's not my > responsibility". > > > Again, that's not what I said. It's great that your subsystem is being > > improved, but insisting that anyone who submits new code to rebase > > on top of some development patches which only exist in mail form, and > > refusing to take patches until they do so doesn't seem right to me. > > If I apply your patch now, Hans has one more driver to worry about in > doing the work that he himself isn't directly benefiting from but > everybody needs. In what world is that fair? > > So, sorry about going f bomb on you, but you shouldn't be thinking > what you're thinking. There's some serious misguidance going on > there. Have you listened to a word I've said? Or have you managed to get your self all tangled up in what you _assumed_ was meant by the 3 words I mentioned about fairness at the very start of this conversation? Me thinks the latter might be true. Just because I don't contribute to your subsystem, it doesn't mean I don't contribute elsewhere. Here... let me help you down from that big horse! ;) -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog