4 ms·

Matthew Wilcox dunked on it savagely too in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZS6Ea4%2FKI0mKiRMv@casper.infradead.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZS6Ea4%2FKI0mKiRM

Matthew Wilcox dunked on it savagely too in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZS6Ea4%2FKI0mKiRMv@casper.infradead.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZS6Ea4%2FKI0mKiRMv@casper.infra... It is your job to do this. You seem to have taken the attitude that you will give the Chrome team exactly what they asked for instead of trying to understand their requirements and give them what they need.

cozzyd 3y ago
And to add to the submitter's rough day, Theo de Raadt has joined the conversation. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/55960.1697566804@cvs.openbsd.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/55960.1697566804@cvs.openbsd.or... mseal() is a clone of mimmutable(2), but with an extremely over-complicated API based upon dubious arguments.
- alain94040 3y ago
  And notice how his comment is constructive despite the lack of name calling or abusive language.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    I'd love to see the name calling. I've read it several times now. I see him saying that this random patch out of the blue, without any discussion, doesn't follow any of the guidelines to submit a kernel patch, doesn't make any sense (in fact, seems to reimplement things already in the kernel), and isn't being accepted without a significant rework. He never, ever, once, demeans the person who submitted the patch or shows a pattern of abuse to that person -- if you look up the definition of "abusive" you'll see it says (emphasis mine): "extremely offensive AND insulting". While the text may be offensive (to some, to my ex-military eyes, this is being nice), he never once insulted the author.