Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Oleg Verych <olecom@...>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...>, <efault@...>, <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <ck@...>
Date: Monday, September 17, 2007 - 4:42 pm

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:06:40PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:

Nothing prevents Roman and I to exchange our respective points of views
on LKML when those are about other activities on the list, I don't get
your point.

I find particularly weird the way you hijacked an existing thread
adding references to a 4-days old mail and adding people in Cc just
as one would add fuel to try to start any sort of flamewar.

Sorry for you, but this has no chance to succeed. First, don't consider
that people are ennemies just because they use harsh words to tell each
other what they feel about a specific subject (otherwise, you'd find
hundreds of ennemies of everyone here). Second, if there are some aspects
of the mail above that you want explained, you can mail us privately,
you're not necessarily forced to hijack an unrelated discussion.

Now I'm not interested in following up into this thread, it's already
polluted. Please let people here discuss numbers and experiments.

Thanks,
Willy

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Willy Tarreau, (Mon Sep 17, 3:43 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 4:01 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Oleg Verych, (Mon Sep 17, 4:06 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Willy Tarreau, (Mon Sep 17, 4:42 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 4:05 pm)