From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:59:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20140624105940.GH14887@thunk.org> References: <1402932354.2197.61.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140619082129.GA4309@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <1403378941.2177.24.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1403448187.1949.9.camel@jarvis.lan> <522aee97-34e7-4adc-adf2-c9b73aa0ef36@phunq.net> <1403584890.3140.18.camel@dabdike> <79582b70-6111-49f5-a1a9-f5701854e199@phunq.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: James Bottomley , Pavel Machek , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner To: Daniel Phillips Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <79582b70-6111-49f5-a1a9-f5701854e199@phunq.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds > into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would > appreciate the courtesy of being permitted to take the time to do the > work to the necessary quality without being subjected to endless > carping about when the patches will be posted. The feedback which you have been getting, fairly consistently I believe, is that it is the shiny new kernel hooks that need to be reviewed, not the workarounds. I don't think it's a matter of people not being willing to give you the time to do this work (take all the time you need!); but rather that it's premature for you to be asking for tux3 to be merged before those patches have been posted and reviewed and found to be shiny. Best regards, - Ted