Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1622558659.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <e91af9d8f8d6e376635005fd111e9fe7a1c50fea.1622558659.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <bd824ec8-48af-b554-67a1-7ce20fcf608c@kernel.dk>
 <409a624c-de75-0ee5-b65f-ee09fff34809@gmail.com>
 <bdc55fcd-b172-def4-4788-8bf808ccf6d6@kernel.dk>
 <5ab4c8bd-3e82-e87b-1ae8-3b32ced72009@gmail.com>
 <87sg211ccj.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <30bdf12c-6287-4c13-920c-bb5cc6ac02bf@gmail.com>
 <87k0nayojy.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait
Message-ID: <aba00834-2e1c-f8cf-e2ab-f13303eac562@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 12:58:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87k0nayojy.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/4/21 10:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Pavel,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 03 2021 at 11:31, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 10:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> 1) The proposed solution: I can't figure out from the changelogs or the
>>>    cover letter what kind of problems it solves and what the exact
>>>    semantics are. If you ever consider to submit futex patches, may I
>>>    recommend to study Documentation/process and get some inspiration
>>>    from git-log?
>>
>> I'm sorry you're incapable of grasping ideas quick, but may we
>> stop this stupid galling and switch to a more productive way of
>> speaking?
> 
> which you just achieved by telling me I'm too stupid to understand your
> brilliant idea. Great start for a productive discussion. Try again.

Exactly why there was "we". I have my share of annoyance, which I would
readily put aside if that saves me time. And that's the suggestion
made

-- 
Pavel Begunkov