From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5781DCF8 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C3D70B for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA2DAwqK017286 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 09:13:16 -0400 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ngm0n8nuh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:13:15 -0400 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:13:15 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:13:11 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Josh Triplett Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> <87ftwt6850.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181027011010.GA29769@localhost> <20181101164544.GA31540@linux.ibm.com> <20181101211152.GA6007@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181101211152.GA6007@localhost> Message-Id: <20181102131311.GP4170@linux.ibm.com> Cc: NeilBrown , Mishi Choudhary , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:11:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 09:45:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 02:10:10AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Not when that document started out effectively saying, in an elaborate > > > way, "code > people". > > > > Interesting. > > > > I am curious what leads you to your "code > people" statement. Of course, > > one could argue that this does not really matter given that the code of > > conflict is no longer. However, I would like to understand for future > > reference, if for no other reason. > > > > One possibility is that you are restricting the "people" to only those > > people directly contributing in one way or another. But those using the > > kernel (both directly and indirectly) are important as well, and it is > > exactly this group that is served by "the most robust operating system > > kernel ever", the chest-beating sentiment notwithstanding. Which is in > > fact why I must reject (or rework or whatever) any patch that might result > > in too-short RCU grace periods: The needs of the patch's submitter are > > quite emphatically outweighed by the needs of the kernel's many users, > > and many of the various technical requirements and restrictions are in > > fact proxies for the needs of these users. > > As discussed in many other places as well, nobody is suggesting at all > that the standards for accepting code should change. Reject the patches > you would have rejected, accept the patches you would have accepted. There have been a great many discussions in a great many places expressing a great many views, but it is good to hear your view on this particular point. It should come as no surprise that I advise you in the strongest possible terms to continue with the view that standards for accepting code into the Linux kernel should not decrease. > All > of this affects *communication*. Communication is inherently difficult. As I suspect the two of us just demonstrated. ;-) Thanx, Paul