Re: BUG in 2.6.22-rc2-mm1: NIC module b44.c broken (Broadcom 4400)

[Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>]

On Thursday 24 May 2007 21:56, Uwe Bugla wrote:
> Please note:
> 
> 1. IRQ 255 looks very idiotic, doesn't it? It does not exist at all, does it?
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. What is the technical need / progress of module ssb please?
> 
> 2. If Andrew Morton's guidelines clearly say: "Do test your patches on three different machines" and this guideline seems to be strictly ignored by some sparetime hackers:
> 
> What is the master plan then to avoid the fact that such a crap is being sent in to Andrew?
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> Uwe
> 
> P. S.: There is an important saying going like this:
> 
> Too many cooks do mess up the pap.
> 
> Regarding the patch in mm-tree I can see SIX (!) Copyright owners.
> The last one of them (i. e. the one of 2007) obviuosly does not seem to understand what he is doing (see that nonsense interrupt please, just incredible!) :(
> 
> In so far I would deeply appreciate Andrew Morton to throw that b44.c patch into the trashbox as soon as possible :)

Uwe, you are an arrogant idiot and I think it's best
for everybody to just ignore all your mails, regardless
of their technical merits.

Even if your mail reports a real bug, added shitload of insults
to developers far outweights any possible useful info.

Developers can save a lot of time and nerver by just waiting for
someone else to hit the same bug, if it exists, and then debug it
as usual.
--
vda