Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 11:08:51 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Colin Foster <colin.foster@in-advantage.com>,
        linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/9] phy: phy-ocelot-serdes: add ability to
 be used in a non-syscon configuration
Message-ID: <20230321110851.GE2673958@google.com>
References: <20230317185415.2000564-1-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <20230317185415.2000564-2-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <ZBgeKM50e1vt+ho1@matsya>
 <ZBgmXplfA/Q3/1dC@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20230320133431.GB2673958@google.com>
 <ZBhtOw4Ftj3Sa3JU@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20230320164136.GC2673958@google.com>
 <ZBiRFNAqd94tbEJ9@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20230321082658.GD2673958@google.com>
 <ZBmD+7pinpTzayep@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZBmD+7pinpTzayep@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:26:58AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 04:41:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:34:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > Once again netdev seems to have applied patches from other subsystems
> > > > > > without review/ack.  What makes netdev different to any other kernel
> > > > > > subsystem?  What would happen if other random maintainers started
> > > > > > applying netdev patches without appropriate review?  I suspect someone
> > > > > > would become understandably grumpy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why again are you addressing your whinge to me? I'm not one of the
> > > > > netdev maintainers, but I've pointed out what happens in netdev
> > > > > land. However, you seem to *not* want to discuss it directly with
> > > > > DaveM/Jakub/Paolo - as illustrated again with yet another response
> > > > > to *me* rather than addressing your concerns *to* the people who
> > > > > you have an issue with.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not communication. Effectively, this is sniping, because
> > > > > rather than discussing it with the individuals concerned, you are
> > > > > instead preferring to discuss it with others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please stop this.
> > > >
> > > > Read the above paragraph again.
> > >
> > > You sent your email _TO_ me, that means you addressed your comments
> > > primarily _to_ me. RFC2822:
> > >
> > >    The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary recipient(s)
> > >    of the message.
> > >
> > >    The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in the sense of
> > >    making a copy on a typewriter using carbon paper) contains the
> > >    addresses of others who are to receive the message, though the
> > >    content of the message may not be directed at them.
> >
> > You're over-thinking it.  I replied to all.
>
> I've been thinking about this entire situation and there's something
> that summarises it. Kettle. Pot. Black.
>
> You complain about how netdev is run, but you also complain about how
> people interpret your emails.
>
> Sorry, but no. I think you need to be more accomodating towards how
> others perceive your emails, especially when there are widespread
> accepted conventions. The fact that you are seemingly not even willing
> to entertain that someone _might_ interpret your emails according to
> standard normals is frankly a problem for you.

This conversion has gone completely off-track.

If you wish to continue talking about email headers offline (instead of
filling people's inboxes with unrelated ramblings), you know where to
find me.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]