Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-04-15T11:45:15Z

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:44:40AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > If you really don't like userspace using features the kernel provides
> > you, well, there's nothing I can say that will change that odd feeling,
> > sorry.
>
> Are you even reading what people are saying?

You aren't reading the patches :)

> I don't like the mandatory(!) aspect of this, which it will eventually
> become. There is this thing called "choice", remember?

See my other response about that.

> > Really? Who in that MAINTAINERS file entry do you not trust?
>
> The fact that you're still pushing for this current design *in the face*
> of people pointing out serious design flaws with this makes me not
> really trust you.

Please discuss these "serious design flaws". I have responded to all of
the ones that I have seen so far in this thread. And in all of the
other threads since this patch series was first posted months ago. I
would love to discuss the code, so please, let's do that.

> > I don't understand what this means. If you have a technical reason
> > for why this code shouldn't be merged, great, please let me know and
> > we can work to address that. Andy and Al have spent time reviewing
> > and giving us comments, and that's wonderful and valuable and is
> > why I treat their comments seriously. If you are interested in the
> > code, please review it,
>
> Yeah, I took a brief look at the code. It is overcomplicated.
>
> If I were to review it properly, I'd ask you to split it in small
> patchsets. Hell, I'm pretty sure you would do the same for code you
> don't know if you were in my shoes.

It has been split into small patchsets, see the original postings.

And really, 13k lines of code is not all that big. We review driver
submissions larger than that all the time. Remember, your USB host
controller driver is bigger than that.

> Also, considering the complexity of this patchset, it doesn't have
> a single Reviewed-by by an external party. If this were any other
> submission, it would've been kicked to the curb a long time ago.

Please, review it, I would love for others to do so, and have been
asking for that since the beginning of this whole process months ago.

And I'd like to thank Andy and others for doing that. Based on their
review comments we have changed the api, redone the infrastructure, and
modified lots of different things. The code has massively changed for
the better because of this process. I'm not asking for it to stop, I'm
asking for it to be merged now as everyone seems to have not had any
more comments on the code anymore, other than Andy's specific comments,
and everyone else's vague rants.

I'm addressing Andy's comments, and I would love to address yours, if
you actually made any technical ones here.

thanks,

greg k-h