On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:19:55 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:08:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > A "Nack" with no commentary is completely useless and borderline offensive. > > Well you just sent me an email out of the blue, with zero context > about what you were doing, and you're complaining to me about giving > your a curt response? First, I didn't send the email, and your "Nack" wasn't directed at me. Second, with lore and lei, it's trivial today to find the cover letter from the message id. But I get it. It's annoying when you have to do that. > > > What is your rationale for the Nack? > > Next time perhaps consider sending the cover letter and the important > patches to everyone rather than the mailing list. Then that is how you should have responded. I see other maintainers respond as such. A "Nack" is still meaningless. You could have responded with: "What is this? And why are you doing it?" Which is a much better and a more meaningful response than a "Nack". > > > The cond_resched() is going away if the patches earlier in the series gets > > implemented. So either it is removed from your code, or it will become a > > nop, and just wasting bits in the source tree. Your choice. > > This is exactly what I should have received. Which is why I replied, as the original email author is still new at this, but is learning. -- Steve
