From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753583Ab0C0PfU (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:35:20 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f223.google.com ([209.85.220.223]:64734 "EHLO mail-fx0-f223.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753527Ab0C0PfR (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:35:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nukD7oOglpCIh0ATb7YPSQZQ+y/DvjGe2nRKzF0LROKuEX3yra/gtgko7nj4eAzinu 3u/AtULzd7fjI+W/QQRgLeqlMLwImqiO7AF172nlKUWiKn1QnfHqR2LCV85yxoDOiAn5 KdlacgzfRoA/SbjjqEIyBxhY3SNXaULIwAuOY= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: David Miller Subject: Re: 2.6.34-rc2 breaks via82cxxx Host Protected Area Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:34:08 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.33-0.1-desktop; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: david@fries.net, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds References: <4BAD5472.9050303@garzik.org> <201003271119.53757.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20100327.074434.193717071.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20100327.074434.193717071.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201003271634.08054.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 27 March 2010 03:44:34 pm David Miller wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:19:53 +0100 > > > The commit itself may also have a problem but since it was _never_ in > > linux-next tree it never saw a wider upstream testing. > > This is not true Bart. Uh? I had verified my claims before writing previous mail.. The patch ("via82cxxx: workaround h/w bugs") appeared in Linus' tree on 19th January and it was neither in next-20100101 nor in next-20100119.. etc. Why? I have no idea.. I've just noticed it today.. > My ide-2.6 and ide-next-2.6 trees are both included in > linux-next And if they are not, that needs to be fixed > because they very much are intended to be. Not my area of responsibility.. > In any event, you wrote a patch which broke something and > if you're not willing to work on a fix I have no choice > but to simply revert. Please.. You picked a patch out of larger patch series posted to a mailing list (which was clearly marked as a one for my atang tree and not for upstream), then you merged it adding your sign-off, did poor job w.r.t. linux-next testing phase and now I'm the one to blame for the breakage? :) Well, your stance on kernel project management has been already made crystal clear during rt28xx driver discussions so I'm not really surprised here. I also don't remember ever signing support contract with you or your employer so I will be putting your mails into a separate folder (lets call it 'almost-spam') from now on.. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz