Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:50:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static |
| |
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> I can only repeat that I did state several times on linux-kernel that > it never worked. > > If you consider it my fault that noone reads my emails then you are > right that it's my fault...
well, i'm trying to assume the best, so please explain the following sequence of events to me:
1) as you said you knew about this bug - which bug causes more inlining overhead than hundreds of your uninlining patches combined. The bug was introduced ~2 years ago in -mm - before the feature hit mainline in v2.6.16.
2) the fix was really trivial and the intention of the feature was well understood - but the feature stayed as a NOP in the upstream kernel for 2 years.
still, while you clearly had interest in this general area of the kernel (for example you wrote hundreds of tiny uninlining patches that work towards a similar goal), but strangely at the same time you neither fixed, nor properly escallated this _far_ bigger bug that causes +2.3% of text bloat on x86 [more than 120K of kernel text]. In fact:
- you created bugzillas for far smaller bugs in the past, but you never created a bugzilla for this that i'm aware of.
- you never directly raised this issue with us: "look guys, this thing really is broken - please reply to me with a fix".
- you never said "this is a regression that should be fixed" to any of the regression lists.
in other words: for about two years you knew about a bug that should have been fixed the day after it got introduced.
i obviously cannot know what your intentions were with this conduct, so i'm eagerly awaiting your explanation for it. Thanks,
Ingo
| |