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

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:27:13PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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.

Total lack of understanding that there _is_ a 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.

Some things have changed, but some things haven't, and they haven't
changed in the way you think they have.

> > 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.

Thank you for admitting that you made a mistake, even though you
don't directly acknowledge it, but it's sad that you persist in
thinking that you're whiter than white when you are in fact not.

It is very rare that interactions between two people that go wrong
are solely one person's fault - a lesson that I guess you haven't
learnt yet.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.