Re: Prepared RDMA Tree for 4.7

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1657 bytes --]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 05/15/2016 02:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 09:09:54AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> On 05/14/2016 12:33 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:31:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > There are three issues with this request:
> > 1. It is not silence, but readiness to merge, since all feedback is
> > answered and everything is understandable. LSO patches are great
> > example for it, if the people don't understand they will ask and will
> > request to adjust patches accordingly.
> 
> No, you don't merge things before they are understood and then adjust
> them.  You merge things you already understand.
> 
> > 2. It will limit ability to move IB stack further and will eliminate
> > fair competitive market.
> 
> Competition is not a valid reason to merge poorly understood or poorly
> designed code.

No one expects to see this code merged, this is why I gave LSO as an
example: people don't understand -> they ask questions, exactly as was
in LSO, and it is OK that this code wasn't merged due to limited
explanation which will be improved in next version.

The not OK is to expect from hardware vendors better review than
community can perform.

Hardware vendors signature in the limited IB world won't help to anyone
to get good commit messages or better design.

These patches are written by engineers for other engineers for real use
and not for marketing purposes.

> 
> -- 
> Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>               GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
> 
> 



[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]