Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:08:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > It got sent for REVIEW COMMENTS and TESTING for people like Robert
> > > Jarzmik and Adam, to get some sense as to the _entire_ series
> > > acceptability to people.  This is a _massive_ series, and it's still
> > > growing.  The series is now at more than 100 patches.
> > 
> > We've already covered the fact that you should have sent it as an
> > [RFC].  None of this would have happened if you'd done so.  Let's
> > leave it at that.
> 
> I wonder if you realise, or even known, given your relative inexperience,
> that many people actually _ignore_ patches with a RFC tag, and provide
> no review or comments against them.

That's their prerogative.  I would take that to mean that the set is
reasonable, and would subsequently follow up with a full submission.

No problem there.

> Remember, by your own admission,
> there's twenty years experience difference between us.

True.  And times have changed a lot since the 'good ol' days'.  I
guess for you this means a lot less freedom than you're used to which
I'm truly sorry about.  However, the processes I (and most of the guys
I work with, including your besty LinusW) are in place for the better.

> I'm going to take one last issue with your comments:
> 
> > That's the problem, it was not clear, at all.  You said you "could
> > have arguably applied it earlier in the set".  But without knowing
> > that this wasn't a stand-alone set (how could I, you didn't mention
> > that), what does the really mean?
> 
> So by your own admission, you weren't sure of the understanding, and
> from the extract of your mailbox that you kindly provided earlier in
> your reply:
> 
> > 30 2016 Russell King - AR (  0) [PATCH 0/8] SA11x0/PXA remainder & cleanups
> > 30 2016 Russell King      (  0) â>[PATCH 1/8] mfd: ucb1x00: allow IRQ probing to work with IRQs > 32
> 
> if that's all you saw, "earlier in the set" in the first message
> wouldn't make any sense, and should've set alarm bells ringing that
> something had gone wrong, or you were without complete information.
> 
> The reasonable thing to have done - especially by your own admission
> that you found it confusing - would have been to ask for clarification.
> You did not, you chose after just one hour (again, your admission) to
> apply the patch.

If I queried every little oddity I read in commit messages and cover
letters, it would either eat up all of my time, ensuring that I am not
functional as an Engineer or Maintainer, or it would drive me to
distraction where I would subsequently end up in some kind of asylum.

Last time; "I see no issue with the way I operated given the
information that was provided."

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog