On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:07 AM Rick Lindsley <rickl...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 4/21/21 10:30 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: > >> Fixes: ed651a10875f ("ibmvnic: Updated reset handling") > >> Signed-off-by: Dany Madden <d...@linux.ibm.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Rick Lindsley <rickl...@linux.ibm.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <suka...@linux.ibm.com> > > > > One thing I would like to point out as already pointed out by Nathan Lynch > > is > > that those review-by tags given by the same groups of people from the same > > company loses credibility over time if you never critique or ask > > questions on the list. > > > > Well, so far you aren't addressing either my critiques or questions. > > I have been asking questions but all I have from you are the above > attempts to discredit the reputation of myself and other people, and > non-technical statements like > > will make the code very difficult to manage > I think there should be a trade off between optimization and stability. > So I don't think you could even compare the two results > > On the other hand, from the original submission I see some very specific > details: > > If ibmvnic abandons the reset because of this failed set link > down and this is the last reset in the workqueue, then this > adapter will be left in an inoperable state. > > and from a followup discussion: > > We had a FATAL error and when handling it, we failed to > send a link-down message to the VIOS. So what we need > to try next is to reset the connection with the VIOS. For > this we must ... > > These are great technical points that could be argued or discussed. > Problem is, I agree with them. > > I will ask again: can you please supply some technical reasons for > your objections. Otherwise, your objections are meritless and at worst > simply an ad hominem attack.
Well, from the beginning of v1, I started to provide technical inputs. Then I was not allowed to post anything in the community about this patch and VNIC via l...@linux.ibm.com except giving an ack-by/reviewed-by.