On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:10:45AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> Jason, ping, it's fair to require that if you made a review argument against >> the design done here and we've responded about a week ago, saying why >> this design is valid (e.g goes along the 10y old IB stack udata mechanism and >> such) -- you would comment on the response and not leave it in the air. > > Was it not clear? Yann and I asked to see the user space side before > reviewing this series further.
Jason, you (U2 BTW) play really, really hard - refusing to say **one** word on your approach towards the built-in udata mechanism for uverbs which I asked you to comment on. On top of that, as happens **all** the **time** in netdev and possibly other subsystems, user space facing kernel patches were reviewed and accepted in this list over the last ten years with-out seeing their user-space counter parts @ the time of the kernel submission. There's no reason to impose this as hard requirement just b/c two reviewers ask that. You don't own this place. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
