From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752513AbbHaUGn (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:06:43 -0400 Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:39002 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751129AbbHaUGm (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:06:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert To: Kent Overstreet References: <20150831190050.GC27538@kmo-pixel> <55E4A77F.7030802@fb.com> <20150831192914.GA1854@kmo-pixel> <55E4AE1A.1040909@fb.com> <20150831195305.GA2822@kmo-pixel> CC: , From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <55E4B3CB.2070106@fb.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:06:35 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150831195305.GA2822@kmo-pixel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.52.123] X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe X-FB-Internal: Safe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-08-31_05:2015-08-31,2015-08-31,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/31/2015 01:53 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 08/31/2015 01:29 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> 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? >> >> It's a simple cleanup patch, against a dormant driver. It was reviewed by >> Christoph, which is as good as it gets. Yes, it should have been posted, but >> it's not like we are talking about a rewrite or anything of that magnitude. >> You're grossly overreacting. I would do it again. > > Look, you've had your own periods as an unavailable maintainer so I wouldn't > throw stones - and it's no secret that I'm still working on bcache. I am not throwing stones, just stating the upstream bcache has been dormant for more than a year. > Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing > list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't > know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's > really nothing to discuss. I already said that, yes, it should have been posted. But it's not like it was unreviewed. Or a massive change, by any stretch. And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that in the first place? -- Jens Axboe