[PATCH v2] drm: hdlcd: Fix the calculation of the scanout start address
Liviu.Dudau at arm.com
Mon Apr 3 07:07:58 PDT 2017
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:31:34AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > I sent a reminder on 20th February about it, and we discussed it, and I
> > > said at the time I did not have time to test your patch. Ville commented
> > > on your patch, which confused me a little, but having worked it out, I
> > > reworked the patch from 21st November to fix that, creating this patch
> > > series.
> > >
> > > I did not post it, because I hadn't tested it (since the Juno requires
> > > a long-winded way to update the kernel), so I never got around to
> > > testing this. So, this series pre-dates your v2 patch by a good few
> > > weeks.
> > That information was privy to you and would've been nice to share with me.
> So what the _hell_ do you think _this_ sentence means? It _was_ shared
> with you.
> The following series is what I came up with, although I've had no time
> to test it.
> which was in the mail which was the parent to the series? Does it
> mean I'm bouncing a ball around the back yard maybe?
> No, the information was there, you chose not to read it, and *you*
> fucked up. Notice that it is PAST TENSE, which means it HAPPENED IN
> THE PAST. NOT PRESENT. This is basic english comprehension.
Hey, you fail basic english comprehension too! My sentence was referring to your
last sentence: "So, this series pre-dates your v2 patch by a good few weeks."
That was the information that you have failed to share.
> > > Now, due to the amount of patches I carry:
> > >
> > > $ git lg origin.. | wc -l
> > > 491
> > >
> > > I work against Linus' tree _only_, so all patches I post are based on
> > > Linus' kernel, and not random other git trees. I do not randomly fetch
> > > other git trees to base patches on them, because that would cause me
> > > insane merging issues so that I can test half the stuff I'm carrying.
> > I understand (to the best of my abilities) your position and the fact that
> > as a maintainer of a large subsystem you have a specific workflow that you
> > don't want to polute with minor exceptions. I would also ask you to understand
> > that not everyone works in the same way as you and that other maintainers
> > and other subsystems have different workflows and requirements. Having my
> > tree as part of the DRM subtree means that we work mostly on the recent
> > Linus' -rc up until about -rc4 and the quickly switch to linux-next. So one
> > way of approaching this is to drop the arch/arm frame of thought when
> > contributing to other trees and adopt their workflow (you know, the "when
> > in Rome, do what romans do" attitude). The other way is to go to different
> > maintainers and ask for special status and tell them that their puny drivers
> > and tree don't matter that much compared to your mighty workflow and they
> > should all bend to your greatness (the "all your bases belong to us" mindset).
> For christ sake, I sent the patches out because I thought it would be
> useful to show what I had come up with, because I believed it to be of
> I won't make that mistake again, I'll just delete such work, because
> it's obviously far too much hassle to work with other people, because
> they don't READ.
> > > Now, it's true that they're not against -rc, but are currently against
> > > 4.10 - it seems that I missed rebasing _this_ particular branch to
> > > 4.11-rc yet, although most of my other branches are.
> > And how would you have handled this situation? Another maintainer sending
> > you a patchset based on an older tree that doesn't match your currently
> > published one? Would you have gone to the trouble of rebasing their work,
> > or ask them do get back to you with a better series?
> If the other work is better, then I would have replaced what I had
> already merged with the better version, or ask for an update against
> the current version.
> I doubt that I'm going to get any time what so ever to test either
> version, so I'm going to delete my version and wait for your version
> to trickle through - which I guess will be in about two months time,
> after the next merge window.
> 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.
| I would like to |
| fix the world, |
| but they're not |
| giving me the |
\ source code! /
More information about the linux-arm-kernel