Hi Nick,
I saw one of your patch to brcmfmac in Lunux wireless. For one such FIXME you have added mutex lock; just because comment said need to have mutex lock here.
You did not have any hardware to test this patch; you simply created patch because comment said so. Rafal and other maintainers were wondering- "Really! Is this fixme that simple? How come we did not get it?" and then it was discovered that function which is calling this one already was having mutex lock and here you cannot acquire it again..
I saw one of your patch to brcmfmac in Lunux wireless. For one such FIXME you have added mutex lock; just because comment said need to have mutex lock here.
You did not have any hardware to test this patch; you simply created patch because comment said so. Rafal and other maintainers were wondering- "Really! Is this fixme that simple? How come we did not get it?" and then it was discovered that function which is calling this one already was having mutex lock and here you cannot acquire it again..
Rafal finally did not take that fix for obvious reason.
Patches should be submitted to just to create your portfolio but they should actually solve some existing design problem.
Do I need to say more about your ban?
Thanks,
Avinash
Thanks,
Avinash
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Nick Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I submitted the patch. The maintainer changed the commit message not me.On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:15:13 -0500, nick said:
>> Greetings Fellow Developers,
>> I have finally learned my lesson as you can tell from my newest patches being
>> accepted or considered in good form.
>
> Right now,all I'm seeing in linux-next from you is 2 patches that
> remove FIXME comments. Given your previous history of submitting
> patches that failed to accurately analyze C program flow, And the
> commit message on one of them:
>
> Remove FIXME comments about needing fault addresses to be returned. These
> are propaagated from walk_addr_generic to gva_to_gpa and from there to
> ops->read_std and ops->write_std.
>
> doesn't actually address the question of how to deal with fault addresses.
> Yes, they're propagated back - but it doesn't directly address the question
> of how a fault address is handled (in other words, you failed to show that
> write_std actually does the right thing once it gets whatever we send back)
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath....
Nick
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
