| To: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:44:35 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050328232359.4f1e04b9.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200503290533.j2T5XEYT028850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4248FBFD.5000809@xxxxxxxxx> <20050328230830.5e90396f.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20050329071210.GA16409@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050328232359.4f1e04b9.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 |
Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was > too large and the vger server munched it. This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed net driver merged?Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list, obviously. That's ducking the question. Let me rephrase. Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK?For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent. You are quite skilled at poking random hackers :) why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack of review was OK.
Jeff
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver, Andrew Morton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver, Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |