Message-ID: <1496294107.27407.191.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the
 target-updates tree
From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
Cc: "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 22:15:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1496293517.16453.3.camel@sandisk.com>
References: <20170601141055.3b64fefc@canb.auug.org.au>
         <1496291234.27407.179.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
         <1496293517.16453.3.camel@sandisk.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1100
Lines: 24

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 05:05 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 21:27 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > but a weeks worth of list silence for your series doesn't mean
> > you're free to push un-reviewed stuff for drivers/target/ into
> > linux-next.
> 
> I think this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
> Your patch "target: Re-add check to reject control WRITEs with
> overflow data" has not been reviewed by anyone but was pushed
> into linux-next and sent to Linus anyway.

Heh, it fixed a regression you yourself pointed out.  :)

If your going to report a bug and not review the patch to address the
regression, I'm not going to let that regression slide to restore
existing behavior, just because you didn't bother to review the patch in
three plus weeks for the bug you reported.

Anyways, I'll get to your patches, but please get reviews on the list by
sending series that people want to review, instead of large unwieldy
series that intermix new features and random bug-fixes without any
context.

No wonder why people don't send time reviewing them!