Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/9] phy: phy-ocelot-serdes: add ability to be used in a non-syscon configuration

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:26:58AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 04:41:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:34:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > Once again netdev seems to have applied patches from other subsystems
> > > > > > without review/ack.  What makes netdev different to any other kernel
> > > > > > subsystem?  What would happen if other random maintainers started
> > > > > > applying netdev patches without appropriate review?  I suspect someone
> > > > > > would become understandably grumpy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why again are you addressing your whinge to me? I'm not one of the
> > > > > netdev maintainers, but I've pointed out what happens in netdev
> > > > > land. However, you seem to *not* want to discuss it directly with
> > > > > DaveM/Jakub/Paolo - as illustrated again with yet another response
> > > > > to *me* rather than addressing your concerns *to* the people who
> > > > > you have an issue with.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not communication. Effectively, this is sniping, because
> > > > > rather than discussing it with the individuals concerned, you are
> > > > > instead preferring to discuss it with others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please stop this.
> > > >
> > > > Read the above paragraph again.
> > >
> > > You sent your email _TO_ me, that means you addressed your comments
> > > primarily _to_ me. RFC2822:
> > >
> > >    The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary recipient(s)
> > >    of the message.
> > >
> > >    The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in the sense of
> > >    making a copy on a typewriter using carbon paper) contains the
> > >    addresses of others who are to receive the message, though the
> > >    content of the message may not be directed at them.
> >
> > You're over-thinking it.  I replied to all.
>
> I've been thinking about this entire situation and there's something
> that summarises it. Kettle. Pot. Black.
>
> You complain about how netdev is run, but you also complain about how
> people interpret your emails.
>
> Sorry, but no. I think you need to be more accomodating towards how
> others perceive your emails, especially when there are widespread
> accepted conventions. The fact that you are seemingly not even willing
> to entertain that someone _might_ interpret your emails according to
> standard normals is frankly a problem for you.

This conversion has gone completely off-track.

If you wish to continue talking about email headers offline (instead of
filling people's inboxes with unrelated ramblings), you know where to
find me.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]