On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:22:47AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Chien Tin Tung wrote: > > > Why do I need to explain the original patch? It was accepted many kernels > > ago. Your questions on the original were based on false assumptions and > > facts which I've proven over and over. You are right in that I do > > not want to revisit those either. There is a patch that can solve > > the problem you are facing but yet you insist on the revert. This is > > very puzzling to me. You simply refuse to move this forward. That > > is your choice but revert is a no go for me. > > Ok this is pretty confusing to someone not involved in the prior > discussions. Could both of your stop attacking each other and start > talking about the technical issues? > Christopher, I'm reverting the patch which made two things to RDMA netlink - It made the netlink stack blocking, which shouldn't. And reinvented the wheel with setting timeout on socket, instead of using proper and already exposed API. I tried to explain it in commit message. Chien sent patch which supposed to replace my revert, but both of his and my patch wasn't accepted without any reason, so I proceed. Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
