Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks

[Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:19:48AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> That's just absolute bullshit.

...

> I'm sorry to say this, Rodolfo, but _all_ your arguments above are
> *totally* nonsensical and factually incorrect -- and I have had enough of
> trying to talk sense to you, it's been ~15 mails in this thread already,
> and I've been WASTING my time trying to teach / explain to you, but it's
> just *shocking* that you prefer to stick to a wholly incorrect (which I
> suspect you've already understood by now anyway) position rather than
> just accepting that the present patch is wrong and go about correcting
> it instead.
> [snip]

Sorry for wasting your time. :'( Maybe you can provide your solution
for PPS support and get it included into kernel tree so we can use it
and live happy!  :)

Several people (Andrew, David, et all) wrote to me a lot of letters
without loosing their patience. I'm a poor programmer, not a «guru»
like you, and I need more time to understand things. I'm trying to do
my best. :)

However I'm very proud to be a "poor programmer" (slow in
understanding things) but a gentleman rather than a "kernel-guru" like
you but totally ill-mannered.

Thanks anyway for your (precious) time,

Rodolfo

P.S. A gentle programmer just wrote to me a letter where, proposing
code/patches, showed to me possible good solutions, so I think I'm
going to modify again the locking code soon.

-- 

GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail:    giometti@enneenne.com
Linux Device Driver                             giometti@gnudd.com
Embedded Systems                     		giometti@linux.it
UNIX programming                     phone:     +39 349 2432127