> > Here it is again as a single series (without the ecryptfs one already > > merged). > > > > I've addressed Christoph's comments. > > And totally ignored Al's while merging the second rejected series into > the first one. Al doesn't like it but everybody else does. His excuses are very hollow and hypocritical, just take this for example: "Except that it fixes nothing in nfsd, as we'd already figured out". That's after discussing extensively how racy the current nfsd code is. And even then the only acknowledgement I get is that the code has always been racy. You bet it has been bloody racy, that's what the r-o-bind patches are supposed to fix. All through that tread, I got a barrage of nasties thrown at me, and every time it turned out that I was right. And then just that issue disappears from the next reply. No "sorry about that, you were right". Yes, I'm getting tired from Al's attitude towards this thing, and as long as no better patches from him or anybody else are forthcoming, or comments actually addressing the _patches_ themselves, instead of some hypothetical users of these interfaces, I'm just going to ignore Al's rejections outright. Now I have much respect for work he has and is doing on the kernel, make no mistake. But that doesn't make him somebody who can reject patches on a whim. > I also still want to go over the various setattr-related changes, > pleawse give me some time for those. Sure, and thanks for looking at the patches. Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
