Hi,
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the thing is that Thomas has advanced the whole issue of timeouts and
> timekeeping by leaps and bounds and he has written thousands of lines of
> new and excellent code for a kernel subsystem that has seen little
> activity for many years, before John got involved. One of Thomas'
> accomplishments is a timer/time design that allows the enabling of HRT
> timers via an _18 lines_ architecture patch. (!)
Did I say these patches were bad in general? All I'm asking for is an
explanation for a few design decisions to understand the patch and its
behaviour better and evaluate alternative solutions.
Neither of you have shown any real interest in this so far.
> the moment you express yourself via patches we'll know that 1) you
> understand what we have done so far 2) you have useful ideas of what
> should be done differently 3) you have the coder capability to implement
> and test those ideas. Patches wont be ignored, i can assure you. Get the
> patches rolling!
This "shut up and show code" attitude is sometimes quite funny, but it's
no real threat to me. I hoped to avoid this and solve this more civilized.
Of course I'll understand the issues better afterwards, but you could as
easily just tell me. It will waste my time, I could spend on other
projects and it will put Andrew in the unfortunate position to decide,
which patch to accept.
Is this really what you want?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
