From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: virtio_blk: Clarification for communication difficulties? Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:00:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <02054675-8395-ac81-6863-e3a5cbfc9032@users.sourceforge.net> <7da823eb-939c-9ee6-32bf-db296e6a96f6@users.sourceforge.net> <44fd46f6-441a-d497-9157-7e2a0f3f45da@de.ibm.com> <20160914101009.6abef9f0.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Chao Fan , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Linux Virtualization , Julia Lawall , Minfei Huang , Stefan Hajnoczi List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> I hope that our collaboration potential can be still constructive, can't it? > > I can understand why others are fed up with this discussion. Thanks for another feedback. > Your communication style is exhausting How did you get this impression? > and you've pushed into the territory where any benefits of taking Would you dare to acknowledge benefits from my update suggestions for any other software components? > the patches are not worth the time and hassle of dealing with you. How are the chances that such a conclusion will change? > I left Reviewed-bys on two patches. Thanks for your constructive responses. > Maybe they will get picked up. I am also curious on how the software evolution will be continued. > But please think again about what Christian explained. Reviewers and > maintainers spend time on your patches so make it worth their while. I risk something just by proposing so many software updates for places where change opportunities were found by special source code search patterns. Regards, Markus