> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > ok, this one got no objection except original patch author. > > Would you care to respond to my objections? > > I replied to these two patches earlier with my nack, here they are: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128273555323993 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128337879310476 > > Please carry on a useful debate of the issues rather than continually > resending patches and labeling them as bugfixes, which they aren't. You are still talking about only your usecase. Why do we care you? Why? Why don't you fix the code by yourself? Why? Why do you continue selfish development? Why? I can't understand. > > then, I'll push it to mainline. I'm glad that I who stabilization > > developer have finished this work. > > > > You're not the maintainer of this code, patches go through Andrew. > > That said, I'm really tired of you trying to make this personal with me; > I've been very respectful and accomodating during this discussion and I > hope that you will be the same. As I said, You only need to don't break userland and fix the code immediately. You don't have to expect stabilization developer allow userland and code breakage. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>