From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751557AbaJAAaR (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:30:17 -0400 Received: from outbound-smtp05.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.38]:56875 "EHLO outbound-smtp05.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750998AbaJAAaQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:30:16 -0400 Message-ID: <542B4B16.6060401@nexus-software.ie> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 01:30:14 +0100 From: "Bryan O'Donoghue" Reply-To: pure.logic@nexus-software.ie Organization: Nexus Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, davej@redhat.com, hmh@hmh.eng.br, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: Quark: Add legacy_cache_size and TLB comments References: <1412120517-14738-1-git-send-email-pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/10/14 01:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Bryan, > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > what are you trying to achieve by sending out patches faster than > anyone can review? Thomas. That's not the intention at all. > Doing this has an obvious outcome: > > 1) The patches you whip up 10 seconds after the review hits your > inbox are likely not to be well thought out. Neither are the > changelogs. > > Just by skimming the lot I noticed at least two issues which you > just mechanically fixed up without applying any thought. I'm not > going to tell you, simply because you are starting to abuse and > waste my time. > > 2) Keeping #1 as your modus operandi will make sure that you get on > the backlog list of reviewers and maintainers and in the worst > case on the shitlist. 1) OK, I take your point on the frequency. 2) On the substance. I'm certainly not trying to antagonise you here - I assumed you were *suggesting* to apply those comments directly ? Which is why I updated the sent patches with your comments - since they seemed more descriptive anyway - and sent back to the list. Thanks, Bryan