Re: Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-06 Thread Andrew Lunn
> However, I'm fully versed on the scripture. > > I'm glad to report that the patches apply cleanly to `net-next'; the > actual patches are, of course, still available in my previous emails. > Also, as already described, they can be easily fetched from GitHub. > > Sincerely, > Michael Witten Hi

Re: Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-05 Thread Michael Witten
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 02:42:17 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> Please learn how the community works, and how to interact with >>> developers and maintainers in that community appropriately. >> >> I already tried that. >> >> If you're unwilling to be an effective maintainer, then please hand >> off the

Re: Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-05 Thread Andrew Lunn
> > Please learn how the community works, and how to interact with > > developers and maintainers in that community appropriately. > > I already tried that. > > If you're unwilling to be an effective maintainer, then please hand > off the responsibiilty to someone else. Could i suggest you

Re: Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-05 Thread Michael Witten
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:12:11 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote: >> If this is considered "new" code (it isn't) and if this email is >> received outside of an appropriate merge window, then save this >> email for later consideration---this isn't a real-time conversation; >> this is email, so it

Re: Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-05 Thread David Miller
From: Michael Witten Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:54:35 - > If this is considered "new" code (it isn't) and if this email is > received outside of an appropriate merge window, then save this > email for later consideration---this isn't a real-time conversation; > this is

Please apply these tiny, 4-month-old patches.

2018-02-05 Thread Michael Witten
Strictly speaking, these patches streamline the code at both compile-time and run-time, and seem to face no technical objection of note. The strongest objection was a dubious *potential* refactoring of similar code, a refactoring which is clearly vaporware, and which I myself would have tried to