From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/9] 3c59x driver conversion Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:53:50 -0400 Message-ID: <44DF834E.4020302@garzik.org> References: <20060808193447.1396.59301.sendpatchset@lappy> <44D9191E.7080203@garzik.org> <44D977D8.5070306@google.com> <20060808.225537.112622421.davem@davemloft.net> <44DF7FB9.8020003@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:29160 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751395AbWHMTx5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:53:57 -0400 To: Daniel Phillips In-Reply-To: <44DF7FB9.8020003@google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips wrote: > That is why it has not yet been submitted upstream. Respectfully, I > do not think that jgarzik has yet put in the work to know if this anti > deadlock technique is reasonable or not, and he was only commenting > on some superficial blemish. I still don't get his point, if there > was one. He seems to be arguing in favor of a jump-off-the-cliff > approach to driver conversion. If he wants to do the work and take > the blame when some driver inevitably breaks because of being edited > in a hurry then he is welcome to submit the necessary additional > patches. Until then, there are about 3 nics that actually matter to > network storage at the moment, all of them GigE. Quite whining and blaming the reviewer for a poor approach. A "this driver is sane, VM-wise" flag is just plain stupid, and clearly fragments drivers. In Linux, "temporary flags"... aren't. Jeff