Re: [PATCH] RT: fix spin_trylock_irq

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 23:35 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 14:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > > This is the second fix for this .. The first was in this email (over a
> > > > month ago)
> > > >
> > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/31/318
> > > 
> > > You're right I missed that. (I even read it). But for fixes like this, (or
> > > any patches that are not in the tree), you really need to resend the
> > > series.
> > 
> > In hindsight I should have resent, but I didn't .. Really it's a matter
> > of frustration on my part. Where I submit patches that should be
> > included , but they are ignored for no clear reason .. Then I submit
> > again, and the patches are ignored again for no clear reason..
> 
> You were asked to rebase your patches against the latest -rt
> kernel. And you bluntly refused to.

Nope , I did rebase my patches when Steven asked me to ..

> I knew exactly why I ignored the patches when I was moving -rt
> forward. Simply because I had not enough time to review them in
> detail. Ingo acked them in principle, but we had subtle wreckage from
> such changes before and I had no intention to put more risk into a non
> trivial merge.
> 
> Sorry, you have provided sloppy patches more than once and requested
> us to pick random bugfixes from a broken ftp server or from the
> mailing list. It's you who wrote the track record, not us.

Oh boy here we go again .. Let just stop right here..

> I'm finally fed up with your prima ballerina attitudes. Either you
> want to be part of this project or not. If yes, then please accept
> that you are not setting the rules how this works. If no, please stop
> whining at us and look for a nice sandpit where you can play these
> silly games.
>  
> 	tglx