On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:Andi, read the patch already. And then shut up. I'm so tired of you always trying to argue against fixes, just because you wrote the code. The fact is, that code was buggy. I've explained _why_ it was buggy. I've sent a patch. I've even talked about how I _tested_ the patch. You've read none of that, you just fixated on the fact that I said "to" instead of "from" by mistake, even though it's the exact same code. At no point did you at all bother to read the patch, nor did you try to understand the problem, nor did you follow the original report or try it out, or think about it. So tell me why I shouldn't just put you in my "idiots" filter? The aggravation just isn't worth it for me. When you grow up and can admit that your code was buggy, or at least *look* at the patches, feel free to start sending me email again. Until then, just don't bother. Linus --
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] Stop pmac_zilog from abusing 8250's device numbers. |
| Andrew Morton | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 010/196] Chinese: add translation of Codingstyle |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Felix von Leitner | socket api problem: can't bind an ipv6 socket to ::ffff:0.0.0.0 |
git: | |
