On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong > to send developers again and again to fix things which were > perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at > some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the I don't even know what you are talking about Or. v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious. IMHO, it took until around v5/v6 before this series was even worth taking a detailed look at. I'm certainly not willing to waste my time doing detailed reviews on other elements when basic things like locking and refcounting are screwed up. I think you are really off side with the idea that a review has to see every problem in Vn or ignore it in Vn+1. That is obviously unworkable. > acceptance but rather be willing for things to be fixed incrementally. That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess, last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
