Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 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