Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757548Ab2K0A1S (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:27:18 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:47395 "EHLO ironport2-out.teksavvy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754871Ab2K0A1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:27:17 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAG6Zu08Y1OVO/2dsb2JhbABEohmReIEIghUBAQU4HgYcARALCw0JDAoPCQMCAQIBERYeBg0BBQICh3sBDQGnXogCChmBC4h7iwiCEoMqA4hCghaKQ4VPiiGDBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="208548941" Message-ID: <50B408DB.5090308@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:27:07 -0500 From: Woody Suwalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Firefox/17.0 SeaMonkey/2.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Dmitry Torokhov , pv-drivers@vmware.com, George Zhang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming References: <20121121202625.13252.86346.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com> <4072068.8FbmJn8R3Z@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> <20121126234426.GA12191@kroah.com> <2961037.z4LULze8vO@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> <20121127000330.GA16288@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20121127000330.GA16288@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3554 Lines: 83 Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>> * * * >>>>>>>> This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest >>>>>>>> udpate >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> VMware. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary of changes: >>>>>>>> - Sparse clean. >>>>>>>> - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a "complex macro" in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which we can't add parentheses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Remove all runtime assertions. >>>>>>>> - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. >>>>>>>> - Fix VMCI handle lookup. >>>>>>> Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked >>>>>>> for, >>>>>>> I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to >>>>>>> try >>>>>>> again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> questions and comments I made. >>>>>> Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. "Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these >>>>>> "asserts", right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() >>>>>> calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from >>>>>> a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it." >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. "You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file" >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. "This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace >>>>>> knows >>>>>> what gcc is using for "bool" is pretty low." >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand >>>>>> why >>>>>> you would be grumpy. >>>>> You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which >>>>> repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it >>>>> was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those >>>>> questions were addressed. >>>> That one was explicitly acknowledged in >>>> <20121030052234.GH32055@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> and fixed in series >>>> posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not >>>> mention it again. >>> I questioned it on November 15, in: >>> Message-ID: <20121116000118.GA8693@kroah.com> >>> >>> Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask >>> enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that >>> were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch >>> (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) >> Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain >> why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;) >> >> Mind resending it, please? > Now resent. I see both versions of Greg's message - one from 15 Nov, one today's. On my Gmail account... So Greg did post it... Cheers, Woody -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/