On Mon, Dec 10 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2007 05:30, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > "Let me close with perhaps the most relevant remarks: the attached > > code has been in heavy testing and in production for months now. > > Thus there is nothing theoretical when I say it works, and the patch > > speaks for itself in terms of obvious correctness." > > That is quite correct, even without the redirect the code passed all our > tests. Remember, we were testing for deadlock, not every possible > block IO configuration.
And round we go. > > We must have differing opinions on what obvious correctness is. > > Yes we do. You appear to have missed the plot entirely. I suppose I > should remind you: this is about deadlock in _your_ subsystem that has > been creating bug reports for years. Block writeout deadlock. Caused > by a deficiency in _your_ subsystem. And I may remind you that I have participated in this discussion before and made my points clear there. I suppose I should remind you how the development process works? Just because I happen to maintain some piece of code does not mean I'm under some sort of contractual obligation to fix and write new code for users. I'll happily review patches and integrate stuff I agree with, as I have been doing for years. This bug may seem really important to you - guess what, that's the normal nature of a bug to a user that runs into them. > Got a plan? Or does endless, pointless flaming feel more like progress > to you? Please, I'm not flaming you. I reviewed your code and pointed out errors, which was followed by lots of hand waving on your side instead of just sitting down and reading/fixing the bug. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
