From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:31:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] rtc: Allow rtc drivers to specify the tv_nsec value for ntp In-Reply-To: <20171127185352.GN31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20171013175433.GA22062@obsidianresearch.com> <20171123095456.lkc4nkuzsd2q26mm@piout.net> <20171127175254.GL31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20171127184411.GA19577@piout.net> <20171127185352.GN31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20171127193135.GA21126@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27/11/2017 at 18:53:52 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 27/11/2017 at 17:52:54 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > I'm actually rather disappointed that Alexandre Belloni has only now > > > brought up his dis-satisfaction with the approach after all the effort > > > that Jason and myself have put in to it. It's not like Alexandre was > > > not copied on the patches and discussion. > > > > > > If Alexandre could not be bothered to bring up his concerns while the > > > discussion was on-going in September, and didn't bother raising them > > > in October, I'd say that Alexandre's opinion at this point doesn't > > > count for much - if it wasn't important to state at the time or for > > > a couple of months after, why does it become important to state after > > > the thing has been merged. > > > > > > Maybe the idea here is basically to waste people's time letting them > > > develop a patch for an approach, and then object at the last minute > > > to that approach. Hardly seems fair or even reasonable. > > > > > > > How unfair that is! Really, you are not in a position to make that kind > > of comment because you are not even replying to patches in your own > > subsystem. But maybe my time doesn't count as much as yours. > > You are, yet again, wrong. > > I am in a position to make the comment because it was me who identified > the problem, put in the hours to work on, develop and extensively test > Jason's patch. So, it's partly my time that you seem to be wasting, > and that gives me every right to complain at this point. > > You, on the other hand, were copied with every single email, and did > nothing to discuss the issue except for the "easy" bits when I posted > a relatively smaller patch - but you ignored the bigger issue. > And this is exactly what you do with other people patches/time when you don't like their changes. You simply ignore the patch series until they go away. > Now that the patch was merged, you throw your toys out of the pram and > start blaming everyone else for "silently" merging the patch and how it > wasn't sent to the right email addresses. > I would really expect people merging code in any subsystem to wait for the ack of the maintainer of that subsystem. I didn't complain about any missing email addresses, I said the RTC ML was not copied but that is didn't matter. You're not even happy about the patch that was merged because it was the wrong one! > And now that someone dare criticise your abilities, you decide to revert > the change and restore Linux back to a crippled state. > > Honestly, I don't _care_ if you revert it and if you want to cripple > the kernel as a result in regards to this issue, I can carry the patch > ad infinitum, no skin off my back. You're only going to be hurting > yourself and other people through your spite by doing that revert. > > I suggest you take a good long hard look at what you're about to do and > ask whether you are being reasonable, given that it's taken you over > two months whole months to raise any _technical_ issues with the approach > that Jason and myself came up with. > What I don't get is that it has been broken for almost 5 years and now you seem to think it has to be fixed urgently. On my side, I want to take the opportunity to think about systohc before adding an ABI that we will maybe regret later. Again, I agree the 0.5s offset is crap and basically only works for mc146818 and that has to be fixed somehow. Maybe I could have replied earlier but that has been my intent from the start but I didn't have the time to look at the history of it before. It was not my intent to waste anyone's time. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com