On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:15 -0500, Chien Tin Tung wrote: > 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? > > There's been multiple threads over this revert. This one is the > latest Leon walked away from: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9814367/ > > I'm simply asking for proof/evidence/facts to back up Leon's claims. > Show me the code/stack trace/whatever and I will be happy to admit wrong > publicly on the list and move on. I do have better things to do than > to NACK a revert. Hello Chien, What Leon wrote, namely that calls that send netlink data from kernel to user space should be non-blocking makes sense to me. So please be more constructive than replying with "NAK". Thanks, Bart.-- 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
