On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:31:49 -0400 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, my response is, why should we replace something that is working > > just fine? > For you. For your code. For the current working kernel. > > Look, Steve, I've tried to work with you. And I've given you reasons why > seq_buf doesn't work for vsprintf.c, and more general cases. You have Please post the lore links, I'll go back and read them. > not responded _at all_ with technical reasons or discussion, all you've > done from the very start is lecture me on process. That's because process *is* the way things get into upstream. I guess you fail to understand that. > > And, to be blunt, the time to have the printbuf vs. seq_buf discussion > was months ago. I tried to start that discussion with you, and you > ghosted on IRC when I started talking about the things in seq_buf that > would have to change. Look, that was when I was traveling. And when I'm traveling I pretty much do not respond to IRC. > > Like I said, I'll CC you when v5 is posted. OK. -- Steve
