From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754302AbbHaT3U (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:29:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:33565 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753907AbbHaT3T (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:29:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:29:14 -0800 From: Kent Overstreet To: Jens Axboe Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert Message-ID: <20150831192914.GA1854@kmo-pixel> References: <20150831190050.GC27538@kmo-pixel> <55E4A77F.7030802@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55E4A77F.7030802@fb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 08/31/2015 01:00 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >Linus, please pull; this reverts a patch from Jens that was committed without > >CCing be or being mailed out to any of the lists. Said patch wasn't in any way a > >functional change and is something that damn well should have been discussed. > > > >Jens - what the goddamn fuck!? You've never touched the bcache code until now, > >and when you finally get interested this is what you do!? > > > >While I am sympathetic to the arguments in favor of your patch, there _are_ some > >damn good reasons I did it the way I did. If you want to have that discussion, > >feel free to mail your patch out again after the revert. > > The patch was part of a larger series that I was working on, and I just > wanted to flush out that dependency. Christoph review and acked it, it was > by no means a sneaking in of a patch. I didn't see it until I went to rebase bcachefs onto 4.2 this morning. I triple checked; this patch is not in any mailing list archive. And you certainly didn't try to contact me. How is that _not_ sneaking it in? > So calm down. Is there a bug? The previous code was crap, having hidden > returns in macros is horrible. The upstream bcache code has been effectively > unmaintained for more than a year, and THIS patch is now a problem? Get > real. Oh, so you're taking over now? This is the first I've heard of it... You may say the previous code was crap, but believe it or not I'm not an idiot and I had real reasons for doing it that way. For damn sure if you want to start changing stuff like this now it shouldn't be too much to ask that you _mail the patch out_ so it can be discussed.