On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 23:15 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 15:09 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > Listen, my primary concern is the integrity of the code-paths that has > > taken us years to get stable. > > If that would be true you would have taken this patch series upstream two > years ago, when I posted this patch series for the first time. Actually, I responded with an explanation of why it was the wrong approach back then, and different issues to consider when touching this particular area of code: http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg11057.html And this was your response: http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg11542.html Your response disregarded the feedback, and focused on a trivial comment and ignored all others of substance. This is why I didn't merge your patch. So I did the same thing again yesterday. When through the patch line by line, explaining the first, second and third order issues to consider when touching this complex code-path. The only difference was yesterday it was shown the patch could have never worked due to a fundamental flaw in the approach, and that the interesting code-paths in question where never actually hit with your manual testing. > This patch > series namely makes the SCSI target core much more reliable and much easier > to maintain. Making it 'much more readable' at the cost of stability for something that you've been unable to verify with QA regression or automation testing is not acceptable. Like I said, you'll need to start being alot more methodical about incremental patches to complex code-paths, and the testing approach if you want to make larger changes to this area in mainline. You've got like 5 patches for spelling fixes, and only 1 for the large TMR change..? Really..? > However, instead of helping to make this patch series make > progress two years ago you chose to obstruct this work and to increase the > complexity of the target core further. You still have a chance to show that > reliability and maintainability of the target core is your primary concern > by posting review comments for v4 of the patch series I posted. > If you continue to ignore feedback and are unwilling or unable to throughly QA regression test changes in complex areas that have taken years to get working across the tree, don't expect a different outcome this time around either. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
