From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14492-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18538 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 04:32:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18526 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 04:32:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 04:32:39 -0000
Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19634;
	Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:23:49 -0700
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:32:00 -0000
Message-Id: <20020420.212348.61263564.davem@redhat.com>
To: thorpej@wasabisystems.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Sparc/Linux fixes part 1
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020420212425.E1627@dr-evil.shagadelic.org>
References: <3CC22CA4.9060300@cygnus.com>
	<20020420.200957.17345631.davem@redhat.com>
	<20020420212425.E1627@dr-evil.shagadelic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2

   From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
   Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:24:25 -0700

   On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:09:57PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
   
    > I produced a backlog of 12 patches, then Jason Thorpe posted his
    > patch.  You choose to review his change before any of the rest of
    > mine.
   
   Err, I don't think you're being completely fair to Andrew, here.  The
   patch I posted to frame.c today was quite trivial, and the code it fixed
   was pretty obviously broken, and thus the patch very easy to review.

I posted patches of similar complexity.  For example:

	http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00675.html

And even the following "add braces to remove ambigous else warning"
didn't get a review either:

	http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00669.html

I mean, if that isn't easy to review, what the heck is?

No, I think am being totally fair with Andrew.