Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:06:33 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"
Message-ID: <20180910160633.GB4386@zn.tnic>
References: <20180910121925.27682-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101443290.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910140710.GR5565@intel.com>
 <20180910144720.GA28349@zn.tnic>
 <20180910150910.GS5565@intel.com>
 <20180910152538.GA4386@zn.tnic>
 <20180910155112.GT5565@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20180910155112.GT5565@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:51:13PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> Sounds to me like the maintainer should figure out how to delegate some
> of the load a bit. Or just go on vacation and ignore all mails. I hear
> stress isn't good for you.

Bullshit.

> That's what all patches are. No should be applying unreviewed patches
> blindly.
> 
> Also often a revert is a perfect way to handle regressions. It gets
> the angry users off your back ASAP allowing you to fix the bug

More bullshit.

> Calm down. No one is out to revert all your patches.

Even more bullshit.

> Maybe you can propose a new git-regression tool then? And document that
> you want bugs reported using it? Ideally I'd say it should do almost
> exactly what git revert does except s/revert/regression/. Though I
> suppose it could include the original diff instead of the reverse.

Even even more bullshit.

> Now, how about we stop this pointless "logic" discussion and
> focus on the techinal stuff from now on?

That's the only constructive and serious thing you've said so far.
Let's.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.