On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:54:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Right; so clearly we're not understanding what's happening. That seems > > like a requirement for actually doing a patch. > > Almost but not quite. It is a requirement for a patch *that* *is* > *supposed* *to* *be* *a* *fix*. If you are trying to prohibit me from > writing experimental patches, please feel free to take a long walk on > a short pier. > > Understood???
Ah, my bad, I thought you were actually proposing this as an actual patch. I now see that is my bad, I'd overlooked the RFC part.
