On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 14:04 -0800, David Miller wrote: > And as others have pointed out you also failed to recognize > the context of the patch posting. It was part of a sequence > of patches for people to test some experimental netfilter > performance optimizations. "RFT" was prefixed to every patch > subject line, if any more indication was necessary. Be that as it may, its a maintainer seeing a patch against his subsystem, reviewing it (albeit early -- we should all want to get around to reviewing that early) and asking for some clarification. The fact is, Steve's changelog was very unclear to people not intimately familiar with the problem space. Asking some clarification just isn't weird in any way. > Yet you object that the patches are against the networking > and netfilter trees. > > Again, your reactions were knee-jerk, by every definition of the > term. > > I know how you work Ingo, you want to be fast and efficient. > But often, your "fast and efficient" is "careless", and this > wastes everyone elses time and in the final analysis makes > you "slow". Can we please leave it at this, the technical issue seems to be delt with. You and Ingo seems to have a gift to rub each other the wrong way, it would be grand if you could both try to be a little forgiving and just focus on the code/technical issues which makes Linux to what it is, technically excellent ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
