From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759892AbYEYTa4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 15:30:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759399AbYEYTab (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 15:30:31 -0400 Received: from smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.30]:3806 "EHLO smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759369AbYEYTa3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 15:30:29 -0400 From: Roman Zippel To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] default to n for GROUP_SCHED and FAIR_GROUP_SCHED Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:30:01 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Parag Warudkar , LKML , Linus Torvalds , "akpm@osdl.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Arjan van de Ven , Dave Jones , Sam Ravnborg References: <82e4877d0805031742o464dd581wd93173d79705ce0d@mail.gmail.com> <82e4877d0805050814j721ae522k84384df48c9f4336@mail.gmail.com> <20080505171501.GA22332@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080505171501.GA22332@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200805252130.05995.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Monday 5. May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > This is a many years old kconfig bug that is frequently hacked around in > distro kernel packages but which has been ignored upstream - i've > attached Fedora's nonint_oldconfig patch from Dave Jones below. (maybe > Arjan wrote it originally?) Ingo, I would really appreciate if you stopped your kconfig bashing. I haven't ignored this patch, if you only did a little bit of research you might have found http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/6/1/170, where I commented on this patch. It seems for you it's more important to reclassify a feature request as "bug" and adding your own little half truth, just so you can harass me. If you think there is a bug somewhere, you are free to submit them as such and I'm happy to explain, if and how that bug can be fixed. I considered to let this (and others) slide, but this latest example http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/473 doesn't suggest that you'll going to stop. It looks innocent enough to the casual reader, so let's look at it a little closer. First you don't even bother to Cc me, although I doubt you don't know that I wrote it and thus is responsible for it. Due to the lkml volume I don't read everything, often even with a few days delay and I would have missed this one if Sam hadn't pointed me to it. Secondly, it's amazing how you get to your conclusion. You create your own reality by omitting anything that doesn't fit into it, only a few days earlier I said in http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0805.0/2454.html that select isn't really the main problem (you were even in the Cc). You are of course free to disagree with this, but you nowhere seem to acknowledge, that this has somehow arrived in your own little reality. You don't even show the smallest amount of doubt, for you it's clear that kconfig is buggy, no questions are needed. If you want to make such pronouncement, you should also do the necessary research, which includes a look at other possible solutions. If you don't want to or can't do this research (which isn't a problem itself), I would expect questions, but you don't need this, you are apparently the new kconfig expert, who can proclaim what is and isn't a bug and how it has to be fixed. I would have ignored this if it only happened once or twice, but this pattern of yours is too persistent to be ignored. What makes this so perfid, is that the casual reader doesn't immediately see this as a problem, since you only show half the picture, omitting anything that doesn't fit your conclusion. Everyone can make such mistake, but if it happens repeatedly despite having different information it's becoming bullying (independent of whether it's done intentionally or not). This is a rather sneaky strategy, where you don't make your hands dirty directly, but still every little stab leaves behind an impression, which adds up. It does nothing but destroying my reputation, I'm now the one who is complaining, which others soon probably like to describe as "whining", which more often lately just means that he doesn't like what someone has to say. I can only loose either way, either you continue your little backstabbing or I have to complain about these (where not everyone sees the complete picture from a single mail). If I should fix this properly then you can claim it had been done due to your "persistence", but let me assure you that this is doing nothing to encourage me to do anything about this. It rather encourages me to spent my time on other things, which are more fun and as I'm not paid to do this, I'm not forced to take this level of masochism, so if it's your goal to get rid of me, then please say so clearly. bye, Roman