| Message ID | 200911032334.40547.bzolnier@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 03 November 2009 23:01:32 Ivo van Doorn wrote: >> > > > The following patch series (against wireless-next) addresses issues raised >> > > > during code review and subsequently rejected by rt2x00/wireless/networking >> > > > maintainers. >> > > >> > > Really stop reading only the half of emails, try reading it entirely (or at least don't >> > > stop at the second word in a sentence). It really starts the bug me to repeat >> > > myself over and over again because you refuse to read. >> > > >> > > Your comments during code review were ACCEPTED with the only remark that >> > > it shouldn't be done right here and now. >> > >> > Please stop this bullshit. We have some standards for the upstream code >> > and by being maintainer you have to live up to this standards and make sure >> > that they are respected instead of watering them down yourself.. >> > >> > You were not interested even in fixing the headers duplication (it turned >> > out debugging scripts needed only 25 lines of code to be able to work with >> > fixed headers -- 25 LOC in bash scripts used only for debugging instead >> > of 1800 LOC of kernel code). >> >> Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, >> and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. > > I'm not in slightest interested in wasting my time on such > things and educating some maintainers about basics. > > [ Code duplication is bad, mmm'okay? Just say no, mmm'okay? ] > Bart, Are you really interested in working with us (the rt2x00 project) in getting the rt2800{pci,usb} drivers in a better shape, or do you just want to continue your ramblings on how bad you think the rt2x00 maintainers, wireless maintainer, and networking maintainer are in your view? Just continuing these discussions doesn't help a bit as Ivo, John, and David said they disagreed with you on this topic. If you just want to continue with a hostile take-over of the rt2800 maintainership, then please let us know that, so that we stop spending time on useless discussions, and let John Linville decide how he wants to handle this situation. It would be a shame of the good patches and work you did, but if that's the case, than that's it. Otherwise, please focus on the technical contents of the patches and work with us to get these drivers in a better shape. --- Gertjan. , -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 00:09:02 Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 November 2009 23:01:32 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > >> > > > The following patch series (against wireless-next) addresses issues raised > >> > > > during code review and subsequently rejected by rt2x00/wireless/networking > >> > > > maintainers. > >> > > > >> > > Really stop reading only the half of emails, try reading it entirely (or at least don't > >> > > stop at the second word in a sentence). It really starts the bug me to repeat > >> > > myself over and over again because you refuse to read. > >> > > > >> > > Your comments during code review were ACCEPTED with the only remark that > >> > > it shouldn't be done right here and now. > >> > > >> > Please stop this bullshit. We have some standards for the upstream code > >> > and by being maintainer you have to live up to this standards and make sure > >> > that they are respected instead of watering them down yourself.. > >> > > >> > You were not interested even in fixing the headers duplication (it turned > >> > out debugging scripts needed only 25 lines of code to be able to work with > >> > fixed headers -- 25 LOC in bash scripts used only for debugging instead > >> > of 1800 LOC of kernel code). > >> > >> Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, > >> and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. > > > > I'm not in slightest interested in wasting my time on such > > things and educating some maintainers about basics. > > > > [ Code duplication is bad, mmm'okay? Just say no, mmm'okay? ] > > > > Bart, > > Are you really interested in working with us (the rt2x00 project) in > getting the rt2800{pci,usb} > drivers in a better shape, or do you just want to continue your > ramblings on how bad you > think the rt2x00 maintainers, wireless maintainer, and networking > maintainer are in your view? > > Just continuing these discussions doesn't help a bit as Ivo, John, and > David said they disagreed > with you on this topic. I tried explain many times that it is not about what is in MAINTAINERS file or what somebody says. > If you just want to continue with a hostile take-over of the rt2800 > maintainership, then please > let us know that, so that we stop spending time on useless I fail to see why you see it as a hostile takeover. I just did what should have been done in the first place (+ I'm going to push drivers further in this direction in my tree) and I was always pretty clear that once staging drivers become sufficiently cleaned up I would start re-basing my efforts on in kernel drivers. I will be glad to cooperate with you or anyone else from rt2x00 project. However I will not spin in some stupid bureaucracy when I see that things can be done more effectively. > discussions, and let John Linville > decide how he wants to handle this situation. It would be a shame of > the good patches and work > you did, but if that's the case, than that's it. John can just pull my tree in right now since it is based on his tree and it would be an immediate improvement over what its in his tree. It is up to him, or Ivo can also pull my patches into his tree. You can also decide to throw up my patches completely or re-do them for some silly reasons. I won't be making much noise about it since I'll be already on some next patches.. > Otherwise, please focus on the technical contents of the patches and > work with us to get > these drivers in a better shape. This is what I'm focused on, if you have any technical arguments w.r.t. my patches I'm willing to listen and address them in sensible time (if they are valid). I would also be happy to work with people with any patches that they are working on currently. Thanks.
> > Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, > > and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. Really - you have a service and support contract with Ivo.. no i thought not. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 00:48:35 Alan Cox wrote: > > > Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, > > > and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. > > Really - you have a service and support contract with Ivo.. no i thought > not. Just today I got PM from somebody complaining to me about non-working pata_pdc2026x_old (pdc202xx_old works fine for him) simply because I fixed some bug there some time ago.... Problems are publicly know -- do you want bz# from Debian, SuSE or Red Hat? Wait.. unfortunately I also don't have support contract with you..
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 00:52:28 +0100 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 04 November 2009 00:48:35 Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, > > > > and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > > > > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. > > > > Really - you have a service and support contract with Ivo.. no i thought > > not. > > Just today I got PM from somebody complaining to me about non-working > pata_pdc2026x_old (pdc202xx_old works fine for him) simply because > I fixed some bug there some time ago.... And didn't bother committing a patch to both sets of code bec -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:40:15 Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 00:52:28 +0100 > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 04 November 2009 00:48:35 Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Yeah I know that. But like I said, I still needed to get around to do that, > > > > > and I am very happy you were interested in fixing it. > > > > > > > > Lets make one thing clear: YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE FIXING IT. > > > > > > Really - you have a service and support contract with Ivo.. no i thought > > > not. > > > > Just today I got PM from somebody complaining to me about non-working > > pata_pdc2026x_old (pdc202xx_old works fine for him) simply because > > I fixed some bug there some time ago.... > > And didn't bother committing a patch to both sets of code bec You misread my mail. Because I also fixed bug in the PATA code though I was IDE Maintainer. Also: Did you have a service & support contract with me when you were complaining about IDE to me? [ and I would strongly suggest you not to go there.. ] Or reversing the initial question: Does Ivo have a contract with me to contribute to rt2x00 project? So please stop idiotic arguments.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:46, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: >> If you just want to continue with a hostile take-over of the rt2800 >> maintainership, then please >> let us know that, so that we stop spending time on useless > > I fail to see why you see it as a hostile takeover. Updating MAINTAINERS to replace the current developers with yourself can be considered to be a hostile act. If you want this for your own personal tree, then keep the patch private - don't include it in pull requests, patch listings etc. And if you genuinely want the maintainership of the rt28xx drivers, then updating MAINTAINERS should be done as an afterthought after clearly proving that you are capable of maintaining the driver and working with the maintainers of the rt2x00 and wireless subsystems. > I will be glad to cooperate with you or anyone else from rt2x00 project. > However I will not spin in some stupid bureaucracy when I see that things > can be done more effectively. It's not "stupid bureaucracy" it's *how* *it's* *done*. If I was going to submit a patch to the Marvell TOPDOG driver to add support for another related chipset, I'd be going out of my way to make sure that *everyone* involved was 100% happy so that the patch can get out to the people who matter: the users. Everyone has to do this, from big corporations like Intel, to you and me. For example, I recall the Intel IWL developers being smacked down a few months ago by John and David over exactly what constitutes a post-merge window "bugfix". The rules apply to everyone, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can ignore them. Thanks,
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 02:33:52 Julian Calaby wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:46, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you just want to continue with a hostile take-over of the rt2800 > >> maintainership, then please > >> let us know that, so that we stop spending time on useless > > > > I fail to see why you see it as a hostile takeover. > > Updating MAINTAINERS to replace the current developers with yourself > can be considered to be a hostile act. > > If you want this for your own personal tree, then keep the patch > private - don't include it in pull requests, patch listings etc. This is not pull request etc. but since the change in question has been stirring needless controversies and distracting people from reading patches it has been dropped for now.
Index: b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h =================================================================== --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h @@ -144,6 +144,11 @@ struct avg_val { int avg_weight; }; +enum rt2x00_chip_intf { + RT2X00_CHIP_INTF_PCI, + RT2X00_CHIP_INTF_USB, +}; + /* * Chipset identification * The chipset on the device is composed of a RT and RF chip. @@ -169,6 +174,8 @@ struct rt2x00_chip { u16 rf; u32 rev; + + enum rt2x00_chip_intf intf; }; /* @@ -937,6 +944,18 @@ static inline bool rt2x00_check_rev(cons return ((chipset->rev & mask) == rev); } +static inline void rt2x00_set_chip_intf(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev, + enum rt2x00_chip_intf intf) +{ + rt2x00dev->chip.intf = intf; +} + +static inline bool rt2x00_intf(const struct rt2x00_chip *chipset, + enum rt2x00_chip_intf intf) +{ + return (chipset->intf == intf); +} + /** * rt2x00queue_map_txskb - Map a skb into DMA for TX purposes. * @rt2x00dev: Pointer to &struct rt2x00_dev.