Re: When we detect that a 16550 was in fact part of a NatSemi SuperIO chip

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 13:59 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Until then, your opinions are only opinions and I don't have to take
> any notice what so ever of you.

You're right that my opinions are irrelevant. 

However, if you are right in thinking that you're affected by the DPA,
then my request as a 'data subject' that you correct your copy of my
personal information would be entirely relevant, and you would be
legally obliged to obey.

> It's rather a shame that you can't be patient and work this out in
> a civilised manner isn't it?

Russell, you took a patch which I had Cc'd to you merely as a courtesy,
mangled the attribution and passed it on, despite the fact that I had
previously asked you not to do so.

When I asked you again not to do that, you were abusive. I'm sorry if
you feel that asking Linus not to apply such things isn't civilised --
but I did ask you politely first, only to receive an abusive reply:

<dwmw2_gone> rmk: I know your policy and that's why I sent the patch to
    akpm instead of to you. I Cc'd you as a courtesy. Yet you still
    mangled the attribution and sent my patch on.
<dwmw2_gone> So... are you going to refrain from doing that in future,
    or am I going to stop Ccing you?
<rmk> dwmw2: oh fuck you, sorry.  I'm really not in the mood for your 
    bloody mindedness.

All you needed to say was "OK, then I won't apply your patches".

-- 
dwmw2