Re: [PATCH] RT: fix spin_trylock_irq

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

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.

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.

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