On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 12:21:06AM +0300, Askar Safin wrote:

On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 11:54 AM Pedro Falcato [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

So, you took an ongoing discussion with an ongoing RFC patchset, and you
decided to reimplement part of the idea on your own, as a concurrent patchset.

Yes. But I propose an alternative solution to this problem.

So I think this is a case where no explicit rules have been broken. But
if you know that someone has been posting patches and is working on a
problem just racing them to get your own stuff merged is very likely to
unnecessarily ruffle feathers. So sync with the person next time.

The discussion wasn't at an impasse and Pedro is expected to follow-up.
It's not very nice to just have someone else's work be for naught.

Brauner said in discussion for your patchset:
"So I'm not very likely to pick this up as is".
So, I decided to submit another solution.

This lacks quite some context... I said "in its current form" and the a
long discussion ensued.

If my patchset is applied, then I will try to deal
with splice-pagecache-to-pipe somehow,
probably by removing it, too. :) I decided first

So ok, but this is literally what Pedro is working on. This just wastes
people's time.