Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:17:14 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 |
| |
On Fri, Oct 22 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:59:28AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 08:19:01AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > It has to go, why? Because your deadlock detection breaks? Doesn't seem > > > > a very strong reason to me at all, sorry. > > > > > > The deadlock detector is needed. Whether you understand that or not is > > > irrelevant to the current work that's being done. And your idiot attacks > > > against it doesn't correct these issues nor does it gain credibility > > > with the audience that does find it useful. > > > > *plonk* > > > > If you can't stand criticism without resorting to feeble personal > > attacks, I suggest you go elsewhere. > > Then stick to the topic at hand, suggest positive changes, and cut the > crap with implied personal attacks like the above. If you hadn't pull > the discussion to that point, I wouldn't have reacted that way. It's > completely juvenile behavior from you and you can't expect me or > anybody else to take it sitting down.
What mails are you reading?!
Personally, I could not care less about the deadlock detection. If it's a priority for you personally or due to corporate reasons, fine, but don't involve me.
I have made no attacks on your deadlock detection other than to state the obvious - that it has cases where it triggers on perfectly legit code. If you read that as "implied personal attacks" or "juvenile behaviour" then you need to grow thicker skin. The only personal attacks here are the ones coming from you.
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |