Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2012 03:44:26 PM Greg KH wrote:
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?)
Hmm, neither I nor Google is aware of that msgid... So that would explain
why we have not addressed the comments that were in it ;)
Mind resending it, please?
Now resent.
I see both versions of Greg's message - one from 15 Nov, one today's. On
my Gmail account...
So Greg did post it...
Cheers, Woody
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
