From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:44:35 -0500 Message-ID: <42490763.5010008@pobox.com> References: <200503290533.j2T5XEYT028850@hera.kernel.org> <4248FBFD.5000809@pobox.com> <20050328230830.5e90396f.akpm@osdl.org> <20050329071210.GA16409@havoc.gtf.org> <20050328232359.4f1e04b9.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20050328232359.4f1e04b9.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was >> > too large and the vger server munched it. >> >> This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed >> net driver merged? > > > Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, > obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK? For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK. Jeff