Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:02:11 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:     "Yordan Karadzhov \(VMware\)" <y.karadz@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, hagen@jauu.net,
        rppt@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, vvs@virtuozzo.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, mkoutny@suse.com,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept
Message-ID: <20211118140211.7d7673fb@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <87a6i1xpis.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
References: <20211118181210.281359-1-y.karadz@gmail.com>
        <87a6i1xpis.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:55:07 -0600
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> 
> Eric

Eric, 

As you can see, the subject says "Proof-of-Concept" and every patch in the
the series says "RFC". All you did was point out problems with no help in
fixing those problems, and then gave a nasty Nacked-by before it even got
into a conversation.

From this response, I have to say:

  It is not correct to nack a proof of concept that is asking for
  discussion.

So, I nack your nack, because it's way to early to nack this.

-- Steve