From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753017AbbHaU5N (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:57:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:32919 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752178AbbHaU5M (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:57:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:57:08 -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: <20150831205708.GB17467@kmo-pixel> References: <20150831190050.GC27538@kmo-pixel> <55E4A77F.7030802@fb.com> <20150831192914.GA1854@kmo-pixel> <55E4AE1A.1040909@fb.com> <20150831195305.GA2822@kmo-pixel> <55E4B3CB.2070106@fb.com> <20150831201752.GA17059@kmo-pixel> <55E4B835.5070309@fb.com> <20150831204231.GA17467@kmo-pixel> <55E4BD71.9020109@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55E4BD71.9020109@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 02:47:45PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 08/31/2015 02:42 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:25:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>Kent, can we cut down on the victim playing? I said it should have been > >>posted, did I not? And usually patches like that ARE always posted, but this > >>beat the series of patches that it was a pre-patch for. Hence it just didn't > >>get posted, and that was a mistake, after a private discussion where it > >>ended up being cherry-picked for inclusion. Even for a trivial patch like > >>this. But it's not the end of the world, it's not like I rewrote your > >>architecture or grand caching design. > > > >You're backpedalling and trying not to admit it. Look, would you do it again or > >not? Because yes of course I'm going to call you out on it if you think this is > >an acceptable thing to do, which is certainly what you started off saying. > > Kent, this is starting to get into playground territory. Should it have been > posted/cc'ed to you? Yes. Do I think it's a big deal that it wasn't, given > the nature of the patch? No. Is/was the patch the right thing to do? Yes. If you maintain that this is how you want to do things - I'm out, you can take over as bcache maintainer.