Re: [PATCH for-next 09/10] IB/mlx4: Add timestamp_mask and hca_core_clock to query_device

Or Gerlitz
2015-05-27T11:54:12Z

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> >> Jason, you (U2 BTW) play really, really hard - refusing to say **one**
>> >> word on your approach towards the built-in udata mechanism for uverbs
>> >> which I asked you to comment on.
>>
>> > And I asked to see the user space side and you have angrily refused
>> > every time.
>>
>> AFAIR I never ever refused to show any piece of code which went under
>> my hands towards Linux to any-one.

> For future reference, when someone asks a question and you go off on
> an tangental rant and ignore the question, then that process repeats,
> still without answering the question - most english speakers would
> call that refusing to answer the question. It is not looked upon kindly.

Jason,

It's not that you asked to see the code ala "hey, do you happen to
have a git with
the user space code for people to inspect while doing the review on
the kernel part", but
rather U2 saying in a definitive manner that posting the user space
code should be
imposed as pre-requirement to acceptance of the kernel parts.

In parallel, U2 totally rejected our usage of udata @ on the spot and
when I mentioned
that it's a feature which was designed for that purpose exactly and
from day one, it took
me three reminders to get a "you know what, maybe that can fly"
comment from you.

So here I started to realize that there's something in the attitude
that goes beyond
the details, and I made the you're not the boss comment.

> I'm really confused why you didn't just post the github links last
> week, the patches are all a month old on there. Was it really so
> offensive to you that we wanted to review the kernel UAPI patches and
> verbs patches together?
>
>> > So I guess we are both playing hard.
>>
>> I disagree, you act as sort of being the boss here, stating every now
>> and then your preferences and way of engineering things as the
>> ultimate guidelines for Linux and/or RDMA engineering.
>
> Lets be clear Or, I have given you (and others) some very pointed
> comments and advice, privately and publicly. That is not 'being the
> boss' that is contributing to fix our community.
>
> When it comes to my patch comments, I give direction on what I want to
> see to provide my Reviewed-By.
>
> If you don't like it, then find someone else to review your code.
>
> I'm busy, and I don't work for you. If I don't want to review some
> patches because my questions have been ignored, then that is entirely
> my perogative.
>
> Pinging me *three times this week* on this stupid timestamp thing, is
> somewhere between annoying and offensive.

See above, why I made these pings.