On 03/11/17 10:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
never addressed? After the first patch you asked for a different
approach which you got. Followed by the READ_ONCE() you asked for. So I
am not aware of anything I skipped.
Quoting myself along the way:
v1: "I'm sorry but this seems a bit crazy to me. Driver's can't poll on
completions because an out of tree implementation changes them in a
weird way??! Just because no one in-tree does it now doesn't make it
invalid."
v2: "I still don't want this merged as it makes the code less clear, but
I tested it and it does not work."
v3: "However, this whole concept still gets a NAK from me. I think it
makes the code less clear for no obvious reason."
I feel like I was pretty clear from the beginning. These are the
comments that you never addressed. Just because you picked up on the
minor issues and fixed them doesn't mean you can ignore the other feedback.
Logan
