lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V13 08/10] mmc: block: blk-mq: Separate card polling from recovery
From
Date
On 09/11/17 14:52, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/17 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recovery is simpler to understand if it is only used for errors. Create a
>>>> separate function for card polling.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>>
>>> This looks good but I can't see why it's not folded into
>>> patch 3 already. This error handling is introduced there.
>>
>> What are you on about?
>
> You are attacking your most valuable resource, a reviewer.
>
> And I even said the patch looks good.
>
> The only thing you attain with this kind of langauge is alienante
> me and discourage others to review your patch set. You also
> give your employer a bad name, since you are representing
> them.

6 months of being messed around will do that.

>> If we're going to split up the patches (which I
>> argued against - the new code is all new, so it could be read independently
>> from the old mess) then this is a logically distinct step. Polling and
>> error-recovery are conceptually different things and it is important to
>> separate them to make the code easier to understand.
>
> I understand it can be tough to deal with review comments
> and it can make you loose your temper when people (sometimes
> even the same person!) say contradictory things.
>
> But in hindsight, don't you think these 5 last lines of your message
> had been enough without that first line?

Very true.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-09 14:03    [W:0.102 / U:3.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site