On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 12:45 +0900, Keith Busch wrote: > For the record, the suggestion provided, which you agreed to look > into, > most broadly enables your hardware on Linux and was entirely to your > benefit. Not quite as dramatic as a political conspiracy. > > You later responded with a technical argument against that > suggestion; > however, your reason didn't add up, and that's where you left the > thread.
The suggestion to the rejected patch was passed onto the related FW team, and the "technical argument" was our FW team's response to the suggestion which I relayed to the list. At this point, there's no closure on whether the device will get NOIOB. My point in bringing up this example was a one-line, highly- maintainable patch which improves the performance of Linux should not have been immediatedly NAK'ed as it was. If you believe it should have, we'll agree to disagree.
