From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4 : igmp : optimize timer modify logic in igmp_mod_timer() Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:04:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20111123.190428.1925341377347198202.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1322066322-4782-1-git-send-email-mypopydev@gmail.com> <20111123.172814.1626722266908002386.davem@davemloft.net> <1322088885.5402.17.camel@barry.pixelworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: mypopydev@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:40242 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753243Ab1KXAEa (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:04:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1322088885.5402.17.camel@barry.pixelworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jun Zhao Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:54:45 +0800 > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 17:28 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jun Zhao >> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:38:42 +0800 >> >> > When timer is pending and expires less-than-or-equal-to new delay, >> > we need not used del_timer()/add_timer(). >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jun Zhao >> >> You did not answer Eric's question, why are you optimizing this >> less-used code path? > > 1). Oh, in the RFC 3376 $5.2, Page 23: Then your commit message is terrible. Your commit message, one the one hand, talks about optimizing the code. Your explanation here talks about RFC conformance. Your inconsistencies, and how you ignore important questions posed to you like Eric's (until I point it out to you) makes your work incredibly irritating to review and process. Your patch submissions need to be more well formed and your commit messages need to explain exactly what your goals are with your change and how those goals are being met by the patch you are proposing. When we read "optimize timer modify logic" how the heck are we supposed to know what this change is actually doing? Why should we think that we actually need your change? How am we supposed to figure out that you are fixing an RFC conformance issue? I'm sorry, this patch submission is junk. Don't send us junk.