From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu>
To: Russell King <rmk@arm•linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation•org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm•com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello•nl>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:19:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120313095020.GA13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
* Russell King <rmk@arm•linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:26:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary -
> > but if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free
> > to pull the patch from tip:sched/arch:
>
> Nope, I'm not taking the tree anymore, [...]
So instead of saying "sure, lets avoid conflicts next time
around" you are now *refusing* to take technically perfectly
fine patches just because another maintainer asked you to use a
different workflow for future patches? Wow ...
Regardless of the imperfect workflow I certainly find Catalin's
work useful technically, so I'll send his preparatory commit to
Linus in this merge window - I hope you will see sense later and
won't block his subsequent ARM patches...
> [...] you've refused to behave in a reasonable way. Your
> problem to sort out now.
For the record, that's utter nonsense:
- *You* failed to reply on the public thread to sort this out
properly in the Git space, avoiding conflicts naturally:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232
While generally we don't mind conflicts, I do mind
*avoidable* conflicts - and this was such a case.
- *You* created a conflict by taking a tree that patched some
rather old version of the scheduler, shortly before the merge
window, when maintainer capacity is the shortest. PeterZ
is a nice guy who will agree to just about any approach, but
I'm quite sure he did not tell you to do *that* ;-)
- *You* replied to me in a rather dismissive and increasingly
obnoxious style when I inquired about it constructively:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/79
There were several easy solutions - I cannot believe that we are
still arguing this:
- it literally took me two minutes to create a proper Git
solution, it's not rocket science. You could have done it, or
I could have done it for you (as I have done it).
- Or you could have replied to the public thread, explaining
why that is not desirable.
- Or you could have said "sure thing, lets do it that way next
time around".
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-13 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-13 0:08 linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-03-13 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 8:33 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 8:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 8:47 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 8:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 9:00 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 9:26 ` [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 9:50 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 10:19 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2012-03-13 11:27 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 11:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 12:00 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 12:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 12:36 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 13:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 12:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 12:17 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 12:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 13:04 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 13:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 15:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-30 13:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-03-30 14:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-30 17:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-03-13 11:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-03-13 8:48 ` linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 8:58 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-13 9:09 ` Russell King
2012-03-13 9:11 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte$(echo .)hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello$(echo .)nl \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=rmk@arm$(echo .)linux.org.uk \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox