Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] PCI MCFG consolidation and APEI resource filtering

From: Xuesong Chen <xuesong.chen@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: helgaas@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
	rafael@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
	mingo@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] PCI MCFG consolidation and APEI resource filtering
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:12:15 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <286ac625-e712-d7e9-2f5d-923f1572b5d1@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211101093618.GA27400@willie-the-truck>

Hi Will,

Thanks for the feedback!

On 01/11/2021 17:36, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:18:35AM +0800, Xuesong Chen wrote:
>> How about the status of this series, it's really bad, bad and still bad... to wait long
>> time for the final judgement, especially you take extremely serious to rework it round
>> by round, finaly you receive nothing. Everyone's work should be repected!
> 
> I've trimmed the rest of your response as it wasn't especially constructive.
> Please can you try to keep things civil, even when you're frustrated? It's
> not very pleasant being on the end of a rant.

I'm very sorry about the non-constructived response, and I'd like to take this chance to
withdraw them entirely... personally this is not a good example in terms of the mood or
the way of expression.

> 
> One likely explanation for you not getting a reply on your patches is that
> I've discovered many of your emails have ended up in my spam, for some
> reason. I'm using gmail for my inbox so, if Bjorn is doing that as well,
> then there's a good chance he hasn't seen them either.
> 
> The other thing to keep in mind is that the 5.16 merge window opened today
> and you posted the latest version of your patches on Wednesday. That doesn't
> really leave enough time for the patches to be reviewed (noting that patch 3
> is new in this version and the kernel build robot was still complaining on
> Friday), queued and put into linux-next, so I would suspect that this series
> is looking more like 5.17 material and therefore not a priority for
> maintainers at the moment.
> 
> Your best is probably to post a v5, with the kbuild warnings addressed,
> when -rc1 is released in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure how to fix the
> spam issue though :(

I've noticed the kbuild warning by the robot, so I plan to fix it and post the v5 soon.

Thanks,
Xuesong

> 
> Will
> 