On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I'm really getting worried that you are apparently incapable of grasping
> such _SIMPLE_ concepts. Who the heck cares whether you put in zeros or
> whatever else in some of the fields? People use it to know how many
> objects are allocated and sure SLUB knows that count, sheesh. How on
> earth can you come up with a lame excuse like that? You dont like the
> 'SLAB' portion of the name perhaps? Is it NIH again?
NIH? I wrote major portions of SLAB. I would be hating my own product.
Could you get the facts straight at some point? This is getting weird.
> Really, if your behavior is representative of how our SLAB allocator
> will be maintained in the future then i'm very, very worried :-( You
> ignore and downplay clear-cut regressions, you insult and attack
> testers, you are incredibly stupid about user ABIs (or pretend to be so)
> and you distort and mislead all the way. What will you be able to do in
> the much less clear-cut cases??
I analyzed the issue and argued that the issues that one test showed in
SLUB is a really special case and then you conclude that I ignore all
regressions? I have addressed and responded to all reports of regressions
that came to me.
--
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]
