Re: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond_resched()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:19:55 +0800
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:08:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > A "Nack" with no commentary is completely useless and borderline offensive.  
> 
> Well you just sent me an email out of the blue, with zero context
> about what you were doing, and you're complaining to me about giving
> your a curt response?

First, I didn't send the email, and your "Nack" wasn't directed at me.

Second, with lore and lei, it's trivial today to find the cover letter from
the message id. But I get it. It's annoying when you have to do that.

> 
> > What is your rationale for the Nack?  
> 
> Next time perhaps consider sending the cover letter and the important
> patches to everyone rather than the mailing list.

Then that is how you should have responded. I see other maintainers respond
as such. A "Nack" is still meaningless. You could have responded with:

 "What is this? And why are you doing it?"

Which is a much better and a more meaningful response than a "Nack".

> 
> > The cond_resched() is going away if the patches earlier in the series gets
> > implemented. So either it is removed from your code, or it will become a
> > nop, and just wasting bits in the source tree. Your choice.  
> 
> This is exactly what I should have received.

Which is why I replied, as the original email author is still new at this,
but is learning.

-- Steve