[PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink
Vladimir Oltean
olteanv at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 06:13:45 PDT 2022
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> following questions:
(...)
> I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
>
> Yet, none of those questions were answered.
>
> So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> my June 24th RFC series yourself:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> the show.
I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
doing these patches any good.
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list