* Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] wrote:

Is this about Liao's siglock patch set? We are at v4 (!) already (see 
[0]) with Oleg's Acked-by added.

AFAICS you didn't Cc: me to -v3 and -v4 - and while I'll generally see 
those patches too, eventually, there's a delay.

quoted

Andrii did get some other uprobes scalability work merged in v6.13:

    - Switch to RCU Tasks Trace flavor for better performance 
    (Andrii Nakryiko)

    - Massively increase uretprobe SMP scalability by 
      SRCU-protecting the uretprobe lifetime (Andrii Nakryiko)

So we've certainly not been ignoring his patches, to the contrary 
...

Yes, and as I mentioned, this one is a) ready, reviewed, tested and 
b) complements the other work you mention.

Sorry, but patchsets that didn't even build a few weeks before the 
development window closed are generally pushed further down the 
backlog. Think of this as rate-limiting the risk of potentially broken 
code entering the kernel. You can avoid this problem by doing more 
testing, or by accepting that sometimes one more cycle is needed to get 
your patchsets merged.

[...] It removes mmap_lock which limits scalability of the rest of 
the work. Is there some rule that I get to land only two patch sets 
in a single release?

Your facetous question and the hostile tone of your emails is not 
appreciated.

Me pointing out that two other patchsets of yours got integrated simply 
demonstrates how your original complaint of an 'ignore list' is not 
just unprofessional on its face, but also demonstrably unfair:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I'm not sure what's going on here, this patch set seems to be 
in some sort of "ignore list" on Peter's side with no 
indication on its destiny.

Trying to pressure maintainers over a patchset that recently had build 
failures isn't going to get your patches applied faster.

Thanks,

	Ingo