On Tue, 2022-08-09 at 18:31 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 03:27:16PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > The link to the user-space programme is in the "RFC v2" version of > > the > > patch from last week. It calls into the kernel through that > > function > > which is exported through BPF. > > > > > > > > > > Again, just revoke the file descriptor, like the BSDs do for > > > > > a > > > > > tiny > > > > > subset of device drivers. > > > > > > > > > > This comes up ever so often, why does someone not just add > > > > > real > > > > > revoke(2) support to Linux to handle it if they really really > > > > > want it > > > > > (I > > > > > tried a long time ago, but didn't have it in me as I had no > > > > > real > > > > > users > > > > > for it...) > > > > > > > > This was already explained twice, > > > > > > Explained where? > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg225448.html > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg229753.html > > Please use lore.kernel.org. Would be great if it showed up when somebody searches for "linux-usb mailing-list". > Anyway, pointing to random old submissions of an RFC series does not > mean that you do not have to document and justify this design > decision > in this patch submission. I guess me repeatedly asking for guidance as to what information I should add to the commit message while I was being yelled at didn't get through. > Assume that reviewers have NO knowlege of previous submissions of > your > patch series. Because we usually do not, given how many changes we > review all the time. > > Please resend this, as a v4, and update the changelog descriptions > based > on the comments so far on this series and I will be glad to review it > sometime after -rc1 is out, as there's nothing I can do with it right > now. Sure.
