From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BECB280260 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ykdr198 with SMTP id r198so99759059ykd.3 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org. [2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m62si6603970ykc.95.2015.07.03.09.49.52 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:49:44 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Make the function zap_huge_pmd bool Message-ID: <20150703164944.GG9456@thunk.org> References: <1435775277-27381-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> <20150702072621.GB12547@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150702160341.GC9456@thunk.org> <55956204.2060006@gmail.com> <20150703144635.GE9456@thunk.org> <5596A20F.6010509@gmail.com> <20150703150117.GA3688@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5596A42F.60901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5596A42F.60901@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: nick Cc: Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com, Yalin.Wang@sonymobile.com, jmarchan@redhat.com, kirill@shutemov.name, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebru.akagunduz@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 11:03:11AM -0400, nick wrote: > > The reason I am doing this is Ted is trying to find a bug that I > fixed in order to prove to Greg Kroah Hartman I have > changed. Otherwise I would be pushing this through the drm > maintainer(s). I am trying to determine if you have changed. Your comment justifying your lack of testing because "it's hard to test" is ample evidence that you have *not* changed. Simply coming up with a commit that happens to be correct is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Especially when you feel that you need to send dozens of low-value patches and hope that one of them is correct, and then use that as "proof". It's the attitude which is problem, not whether or not you can manage to come up with a correct patch. I've described to you what you need to do in order to demonstrate that you have the attitude and inclinations in order to be a kernel developer that a maintainer can trust as being capable of authoring a patch that doesn't create more problems than whatever benefits it might have. I respectfully ask that you try to work on that, and stop bothering me (and everyone else). Best regards, - Ted -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org