On 2 July 2015 at 01:24, Hin-Tak Leung <hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1 July 2015 at 17:09, Sergei Antonov <saproj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 30 June 2015 at 17:40, Hin-Tak Leung <hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 28 June 2015 at 19:52, Sergei Antonov <saproj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> <snipped> >>>> If I fix something else in hfsplus in the future, will you again >>>> submit a combined hfsplus+hfs patch? I would prefer separation. Hoped >>>> to receive your "Tested-by:" for my "hfsplus: release bnode pages >>>> after use, not before" and then submit a V2 of it with a longer >>>> description. >>> >>> Possibly yes, if the patch description is clearly unsatisfactory and >>> deemed incomprehensible, and you have not re-submitted a v2 >>> within a reasonable time. I already explained why I re-submitted >>> with a different patch description in the first of 3 below: >>> >>> [PATCH 0/2] two patches about B-tree corruptions in hfs and hfsplus >>> [PATCH v2] hfs,hfsplus: cache pages correctly between bnode_create and >>> [PATCH] hfs: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0 >>> >>> Please just re-submit v2 yourself if more than a few people thinks your patch >>> description is unsatisfactory, instead of waiting for somebody else to >>> do it for you; >>> and also please just say "thank you", when others are willing spend their >>> valuable time to look at and check and verify what you do. >> >> This "what I do" fixes the problem you have been complaining about for >> years. The historical research you have done is interesting, but >> simple testing is to be expected in the first place. > > You are still trying to argue that your patch description is not poor, > as you did a few times in this thread already. Quite a few of us had > already said > it is poor. I did not think you were going to submit a v2, because you > have not really accepted any criticisms as valid, either. > > You don't think the lost development history between 2001 > and 2005 is important. I think it is. That is clearly reflected in how poor > your patch description is, and why I re-wrote the patch description. > Not new idea here. > > I am still waiting for that 'thank you' for time spent on testing and collating > all the discussion into the new patch description. Just sent a V2 of my patch. Took three links to previous bug reports found by you. Thank you for them! -- 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
