Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757355AbYCDOXW (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:23:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752134AbYCDOXK (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:23:10 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:37006 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751296AbYCDOXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:23:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:22:48 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Alexey Starikovskiy , lenb@kernel.org, astarikovskiy@suse.de, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static Message-ID: <20080304142248.GA2201@elte.hu> References: <20080303103933.GC21190@elte.hu> <20080303113451.GF4457@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080303114533.GA4183@elte.hu> <20080303120211.GG4457@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080303121015.GA12660@elte.hu> <20080303122953.GH4457@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080303125027.GA21577@elte.hu> <20080303145413.GA26072@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080304131600.GG29777@elte.hu> <20080304134701.GA20278@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080304134701.GA20278@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2036 Lines: 51 * Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't remember having ever said this. > > > > > > Your choices are: > > > [ ] prove your accusation that I said I > > > "knew about this bug before the feature hit mainline" > > > [ ] apologize > > > [ ] be the firest person ever in my killfile > > > > Adrian, you must be misunderstanding something. Where exactly in the > > above sentences do i assert that you "knew about this bug before the > > feature hit mainline"? I dont say that and cannot say that - > > Please explain your statement "before the feature hit mainline in > v2.6.16" in the above sentence of you in a reasonable way other than > that it should say I knew about it before the feature hit mainline. do you mean this paragraph: | 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. sorry, but i know of no rule of grammar that could read your interpretation into my two sentences. (and that's not surprising at all, because i never intended to even suggest that you knew about this breakage "before it went mainline" - why would i even care about such a detail?) Ingo -- 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/