From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2652B14F114; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729090342; cv=none; b=Deli5/9xqkUI9vOqlFdJlY5ZyxyugcGdQEXzmw2jtQdwn5/vYbSwh61h6ZlZpAo2Qi0F9MjwhqsSHGHIRFGYh/SWgfIP5vAYf3v3qHlX8rSAYoVZGh4iYKJ4AQz2NgHsNLFfYjgt4z5KzguCMtfytjpzEi0TxpwXmU0BzZTnhQg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729090342; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jheGUNQp3jvmRMEIsYqXlubhRBxYkRt6CAwDq2F8TF0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OXpPwFycxHwr+oGb529djKhAdrLebavEdjMLyWxkwmLUsyJsI1m9LcUXJCHm4YV92vhEveqUuUdXk9lWRSNVD7dhXhGvornBvFTzKSAoSCjiHmAAIW4CHukD8v6buoUa2jH1zeSggeM0Xqwpm1KMX73KMWVu2zczGw3EvCVXZLU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=EKKKBTcF; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=10MRcRyK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="EKKKBTcF"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="10MRcRyK" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1729090338; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nQFpIFRQ+pVFsLZBaGtgYJvYAa5CdSGNPAeItWvRYvM=; b=EKKKBTcFLZ+C71M7W+roVrj3cbDM4ysJVOm2W1ad04Zvs/ixRYtXchmlT7tJBOhi9WzLcB D1jSzdJmsT9TZWKNlf5VV8UxEk7hnyd/oLJsV2L+d3XVGiDxr6TUDfNhRfc/OkOUyiU9iu gQ5kLmSRsnH1gzpPD4+9/VCmJmSR9nYLgBttoKyH9rDpIKBDnU7j5Y2sQkApYsU6Z2r8KF VOW1th59jxN+5kflshlqDzJ4ITS7y6XzSZlH6D4IDAj5IULF0OrtUBiyvnLcgVP3DvmIsT HZD+Eded7xpObpFZrsUZ7K9b6UDsLEs7xld/wGririYGDIq+5jLDi43fDPnBQw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1729090338; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nQFpIFRQ+pVFsLZBaGtgYJvYAa5CdSGNPAeItWvRYvM=; b=10MRcRyKWUIcuypO0VhFvsnizU44PXSmLWC5xVarwisKqZdpF+e3GNNL67VbL5ifxOy7wv 6Kt1/5oOOTZ+QVAw== To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Jinjie Ruan , bryan.whitehead@microchip.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org, richardcochran@gmail.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, jstultz@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() In-Reply-To: <20241015162227.4265d7b2@kernel.org> References: <20241009072302.1754567-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20241009072302.1754567-2-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20241011125726.62c5dde7@kernel.org> <87v7xtc7z5.ffs@tglx> <20241015162227.4265d7b2@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:52:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87frowcd7i.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Tue, Oct 15 2024 at 16:22, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:33:02 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > I'm guessing we can push this into 6.12-rc and the other patch into >> > net-next. I'll toss it into net on Monday unless someone objects. >> >> Can you folks please at least wait until the maintainers of the code in >> question had a look ? > > You are literally quoting the text where I say I will wait 3 more days. > Unfortunately "until the maintainers respond" leads to waiting forever > 50% of the time, and even when we cap at 3 working days we have 300 > patches in the queue (292 right now, and I already spent 2 hours > reviewing today). Hope you understand. I understand very well, but _I_ spent the time to review the earlier variants of these patches and to debate with the submitter up to rev 5. Now you go and apply a patch to a subsystem you do not even maintain just because I did not have the bandwidth to look at it within the time limit you defined? Seriously? This problem is there for years, so a few days +/- are absolutely not relevant. > Sorry if we applied too early, please review, I'll revert if it's no > good. I assume you route it to Linus before 6.12 final. So let it applied. Thanks, tglx