From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752698AbbHaUZc (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:25:32 -0400 Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:2581 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815AbbHaUZb (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:25:31 -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> <55E4B3CB.2070106@fb.com> <20150831201752.GA17059@kmo-pixel> CC: , From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <55E4B835.5070309@fb.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:25:25 -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: <20150831201752.GA17059@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 02:17 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> 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 then you said you'd do it again. > > Look, it's about extending a basic courtesy - other people I work with have no > issue with this. Tejun still pings me and lets me know about percpu refcount > changes even though he's taken over as maintainer of that code since almost > after I wrote it. Similarly with most anyone else I've worked with in the kernel > community. I've always put quite a bit of effort into making sure I don't miss > anyone on my CC lists when I was doing work in the block layer that touched all > kinds of code. > > Why not you? 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. >> And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that in >> the first place? > > Not terribly interested in doing that after the fact, when you've already > bypassed me and gotten your patch in, and you're still saying you'd do it again. > Sorry, I'm not having the discussion on those terms. Grow up. We should revert a patch cleaning up macros with returns in them, but you won't really let us in on why? Unless we can turn this into a REAL (and technical) discussion on why we should revert to the old code, I'm done spending time on this thread. -- Jens Axboe