On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 08:48 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:17 AM, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 14:08 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> I don't have a libsas environment handy, I worked with Praveen to > >> validate the version as submitted if you want to re-work it. > > > > A couple of days ago, this was so urgent as to have to go outside the > > usual patch process ... now it's not important enough for you to bother > > working on it; which is it? > > Neither, it was a reviewed patch that was idling in the process. I'm > still of the opinion that pinging Andrew in a case like this *is* the > expected process, unless there's a place I can check that a patch is > still in the application queue? I didn't ask you to justify your process, I asked you how important you thought the patch was mainly because of the conflicting signals you've sent. I get that you think I should treat all your patches as important whether you do or not, but the world doesn't quite work like that: patch application is a process of triage. Patches, like this, which have timing related issues potentially leading to races get looked at by me as the last reviewer. The speed of review depends on several factors, but one of which is what type of user visible issue is this causing. The user visible effects of this are a nasty warning message and nothing more, I believe? A useful indicator in this triage is how important the submitter thinks the patch is, which was originally why I asked. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
