On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 01:30:39AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> A level of completeness can be relative to each person. For all the
> years I've submitting the patches to the kernel I couldn't even
> remember the last request to elaborate my logs. In no means I want to
> say they were perfect. I could just be too immersed into the problem
> so thought that the provided text was descriptive enough especially
> for the subsystem maintainer. So to speak asking for more details
> would be more than enough.
Dude, are you even reading what I'm writing to you?!
I don't care how immersed you were in the problem and who asked or
didn't ask you to elaborate your logs. If you're submitting patches
to the EDAC tree, those logs need to be complete and explain things
sufficiently and exactly. Period.
> So you need more details. You should have just asked. I can't read
> your mind after all.
And I can't read yours too. And I asked like three times already. And
yet, you still are not giving me a concrete answer.
I said "exact pointers please". That means, you point me to a driver and
the *exact* *code* in there which you think is doing something which
needs fixing.
What you've given me again is the same spiel as before.
So let me save you and me some time: your patches are not going anywhere
until they explain the thing they're fixing properly and precisely. End
of story.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
