On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:29:08AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This series inhibit the illegal simplification of redundant > > stores when the stores are volatiles ones. > > > > Luc Van Oostenryck (2): > > add test case for bogus volatile simplification > > fix: volatile stores must not be simplified > > Looks good to me. > > Can I apply those? If you would do that: 1) it would be equivalent to rebasing one of my branches 2) it make me wonder if I have misunderstood something to the way we had, some months ago, agreed to work together. 3) it make me wonder why there is 67 branches in my github tree waiting for you to pull them, most having been totally ignored by you, a good number of them being 7 or 8 months old with a few even older (not talking about the dozens of other topic branches that I've never bothered to submit because they don't make sense without their parent branches). 4) it make me wonder why this sudden promptitude from your part. Now, to be honest, I don't care much anymore, I'm just sick and tired of it. -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
