On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > In the second RFC, I stated: > > "Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've > included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that > no one has any opinions on them?" > > Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this, > not just the two people in the To: header. (...) > This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the > "default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite > (a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it > appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent, > and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent. > > This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at > an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times. Please stop shoving quotes of your questions in my face, I'm still glad I deleted my draft responses to them when they were originally asked, because *when* (not *if*) things will have went sideways, I would have blamed myself for people wanting to test/respond but not having whom to talk to, because you rage quit. You need to understand that a voluntary reviewer doesn't have a duty to respond to you on any certain date, and that I'm not obliged to shut up about where to place "default_interface" because I haven't said anything about it in the first N series. I was on the fence whether it was even worth saying anything about it at all, and the only reason I decided to do it was because the patch to change every DSA driver's phylink_get_caps() prototype now conflicts with concurrent changes done to drivers, and doesn't apply to net-next anyway: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1oCNl3-006e3n-PT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ So I really can't be reasonably accused of wanting to stall this series. You have no reason whatsoever to pick a fight with me, so please stop it.
