On 26.04.2022 12:54, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 26/04/2022 11:24, Jan Beulich wrote: >> In send_memory_live() the precise value the dirty_count struct field >> gets initialized to doesn't matter much > > Yes it does. > > And as you keep on refusing to actually fix the bugs pointed out during > review, this entire series is NACKED, seeing as you've also repeatedly > failed to address feedback from previous revisions on other patches.
Excuse me? Afair I did respond back, requesting further input from you. It is this input which hasn't come forward; I don't see how I could have made changes when I don't know what exactly I need to do. This is emphasized by Ian giving a provisional ack on 'libxenguest: short- circuit "all-dirty" handling', depending on you not proving him, Jürgen (who had reviewed what is now the first two patches), and me wrong. There again was no response from you. In such a case no response can only mean "what I've heard back was satisfactory". Also may I remind you that you're not in the position to NACK this entire series. You can latch '"open" objections', yes, but it is at best unfair to record objections without then working towards resolving them, by simply remaining silent towards the request for further input. This looks to be a repeating pattern, which is rather frustrating. I fully recognize that in many areas you know things better than I do, but this doesn't mean you're always right and I'm always wrong. Therefore, like e.g. for patch 1 in this series, you will want to actively convince the three people who think the change is okay, rather than simply saying "no" with apparently none of the three understanding why you say so. I also view it as at least questionable behavior to NACK an entire series when there are clearly issues which want taking care of. If not by the patches in their present shape, then by whatever is suitable (working out of which is why discussion needs to continue until clarity is actually reached). Jan
