On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:07 AM Rick Lindsley
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 4/21/21 10:30 PM, Lijun Pan wrote:

quoted

quoted

Fixes: ed651a10875f ("ibmvnic: Updated reset handling")
Signed-off-by: Dany Madden <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <redacted>

One thing I would like to point out as already pointed out by Nathan Lynch is
that those review-by tags given by the same groups of people from the same
company loses credibility over time if you never critique or ask
questions on the list.

Well, so far you aren't addressing either my critiques or questions.

I have been asking questions but all I have from you are the above
attempts to discredit the reputation of myself and other people, and
non-technical statements like

     will make the code very difficult to manage
     I think there should be a trade off between optimization and stability.
     So I don't think you could even compare the two results

On the other hand, from the original submission I see some very specific
details:

     If ibmvnic abandons the reset because of this failed set link
     down and this is the last reset in the workqueue, then this
     adapter will be left in an inoperable state.

and from a followup discussion:

     We had a FATAL error and when handling it, we failed to
     send a link-down message to the VIOS. So what we need
     to try next is to reset the connection with the VIOS. For
     this we must ...

These are great technical points that could be argued or discussed.
Problem is, I agree with them.

I will ask again:  can you please supply some technical reasons for
your objections.  Otherwise, your objections are meritless and at worst
simply an ad hominem attack.

Well, from the beginning of v1, I started to provide technical inputs.
Then I was not
allowed to post anything in the community about this patch and VNIC
via ljp@linux.ibm.com except giving an ack-by/reviewed-by.