Subbrathnam, Swaminathan wrote:
"Moreover, I've learned to be pessimistic
about the quality of TI's code over the last months, so I'm seeing no
guarantees that it will stay the same after the review...
"
I would request you to refrain making such generic comments.
I would request TI engineers refrain from threats of reverting the others'
patches, espesically when they can't tell why they need to be reverted.
I am forced to write this after you have been consistently making such uncalled for generalizations.
At least you don't call them ungrounded. :-)
I think it is counterproductive to what community stands for.
I was only reacting to Ajay being counteproductive. I didn't like his idea
of reverting my pending patches (that he'd never proven wrong) at all...
I find no reason for me to justify in detail out how the commuunity (and TI working with community) have benefitted from contributions from TI's community members. The basic intent of the contributions has been to strengthen the community and not to gain patch brownie points or recognition.
I don't care about recognition too. Only about quality.
Ajay has provided in his response references were you have agreed on providing the updated patches (http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=122651702219739&w=2).
That was based on Ajay's prior recogniztion of my suggested approach as
being enough to fix his issue (which he had never described in detail to that
point) -- and I was calling them "possible replacements" even then. When the
patches were finally posted (in an evolved form compared to my first idea), he
complained that they didn't fix the issue...
I understand that you are busy (as you had stated here)
"Busy" doesn't really describe that... :-/
and have expressed your inablity to provide the same.
I certainly haven't had time to deal with aposteriori complaints.
As Ajay has indicated he will be re-submitting the patches once again with the appropriate fixes soon probably by tomorrow.
Let him be prepared for critial review then.
regards
swami
________________________________________
From: davinci-linux-open-source-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [davinci-linux-open-source-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sergei Shtylyov [sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:29 PM
To: Gupta, Ajay Kumar
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] musb_host: fix endpoint_disable() method
Gupta, Ajay Kumar wrote:
Sergei, was this fixed ??
By me? No. I have enough work to do rather than fixing this corner
case. E.g. I'm still busy fixing ISO Tx DMA which is certainly more
important (and complex) task.
Where's the new version of this patch ?
What? This is hardly even connected to my patch -- especially this
one.
What do you mean,
Please read all this thread.
the original patch is yours.
I haven't promised to fix the corner case oops that Ajay has reported
(besides, I have too many other issue to deal with). And it hasn't
been proven
that it was caused by my patches. So, I'm seeing no reason for new
versions --
this patch in particular fixed the case of an *assured* oops/lockup.
[1] [PATCH 2/8] musb_host: fix endpoint_disable() method at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=122963107004966&w=2
[2] [PATCH 1/8] musb_host: fix urb_dequeue() method at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=122963106904957&w=2
[3] usb: musb: Fix for kernel panic with multiple bulk transfer at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=122390068417621&w=2
Two patch ([1] and [2]) from Sergei's submitted patch-list is suppose
to be a replacement for [3]
and is expected to solve the the kernel panic which was earlier
getting fixed by [3]
Well, it was your expectation only. I've claimed that they are
partial replacements, not that they'll fix your corner case.
but seems there is still some corner case left in [1] and [2].
Why not find a dn fix it if you have time? I certainly don't. And
I'm certainly not going to do all the work for everybody.
The kernel panic I reported doesn't happen if we use [3] above.
You haven't offered us the reworked version during all these months
I don't get why you said that my patches *may* need to be reveted. You're not
sure or have not seen the actual fix
code snippet are at the same place and so would require revert and thus i think its better
to wait.
Sorry, I can't wait anymore at this point -- I will fix up some of my
former patches an resubmit ASAP. Moreover, I've learned to be pessimistic
about the quality of TI's code over the last months, so I'm seeing no
guarantees that it will stay the same after the review...
anyways lets see what felipe and others opinion on this, if they are fine then no issue.
Thank goodness.
ajay
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
