From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422670Ab2LFJiB (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:38:01 -0500 Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:59357 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932459Ab2LFJh6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:37:58 -0500 From: Martin Steigerwald To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:37:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.0-rc8-f2fs-tp520+; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , "Theodore Ts'o" , "linux-fsdevel" References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121206011402.GB27172@dastard> (sfid-20121206_101846_967501_50CDB52C) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <201212061037.56597.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2012 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > And for changes to syscalls? That's something that must be peer > > reviewed because we are going to be stuck with those changes forever > > as we can't undo them at a later date. It doesn't matter who made the > > change in question, I would have done exactly the same thing.... > > The thing that people are complaining about is exactly the reverse of > this. It's *protecting* us from making mistakes, and doesn't actually > add any new interfaces in itself. > > This is why I'm so annoyed with this stupid thread. It's been going on > forever, and reverting that change WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY A BAD IDEA. See, thats where you have a problem with "reality". It seems you cannot accept the fact that some developers disliked the process in which this change was pushed. It seems to be that you want this thread to vanish in thin air immediately. But unfortunately it didnīt. So while the process generally is fluid, I agree to that, it wasnīt fluid here. Or would you call this fluid here? I accept the fact that a decision has been made. And I am not deeply enough into the technical matters to have to continue discussing it. I also think all arguments have been said. The process has been the way it is. Noted. For the future there is potential to do it differently with less churn involved. Will you, Ted and others involved take the chance? Up to you entirely. And depending on what effect you want to create. BTW: I do not buy into your tough guy number. Scare someone else with that, if it makes you feel better about yourself. So thanks for the factual stuff that you delivered after your first post to the thread. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7