On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:36:52PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:23:57 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 02:37:54 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:04PM -0800, George Zhang wrote: > > > > > * * * > > > > > This series of VMCI linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate > > > > > from > > > > > VMware. > > > > > > > > > > Summary of changes: > > > > > - Sparse clean. > > > > > - Checkpatch clean with one exception, a "complex macro" in > > > > > > > > > > which we can't add parentheses. > > > > > > > > > > - Remove all runtime assertions. > > > > > - Fix device name, so that existing user clients work. > > > > > - Fix VMCI handle lookup. > > > > > > > > Given that you failed to answer the questions I asked the last time you > > > > posted this series, and you did not make any of the changes I asked for, > > > > I can't accept this (nor should you expect me to.) > > > > > > > > And people wonder why reviewers get so grumpy... > > > > > > > > My trees are now closed for the 3.8 merge window, so feel free to try > > > > again after 3.8-rc1 is out, and you have answered, and addressed, the > > > > questions and comments I made. > > > > > > Greg, there were 3 specific complaints from you: > > > > > > 1. "Given that this is a static function, there's no need for these > > > "asserts", right? Please send a follow-on patch removing all BUG_ON() > > > calls from these files, it's not acceptable to crash a user's box from > > > a driver that is handling parameters you are feeding it." > > > > > > 2. "You obviously didn't run checkpatch on this file" > > > > > > 3. "This line causes sparse to complain. The odds that userspace knows > > > what gcc is using for "bool" is pretty low." > > > > > > Given the fact that the series addresses all 3 I fail to understand why > > > you would be grumpy. > > > > You are ignoring my response to patch 12/12 for some reason (which > > repeated a bunch of the questions I had with that patch the last time it > > was posted.) That is what I am referring to here. None of those > > questions were addressed. > > That one was explicitly acknowledged in > <20121030052234.GH32055@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and fixed in series > posted on 11/01. Since it was fixed in earlier posting we did not > mention it again. I questioned it on November 15, in: Message-ID: <20121116000118.GA8693@xxxxxxxxx> Just ignoring that long response is acceptable? Really? I didn't ask enough questions in that review? I see obvious comments in there that were _not_ addressed in the November 21st posting of that patch (typedefs for u32? No c99 initializers?) And why isn't George responding to my comments when I ask questions? Also, please start numbering the submissions, this having to reference them by date is going to cause us all to get even more confused quicker. greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
