From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754139Ab0IVSVH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:21:07 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:37331 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751967Ab0IVSVF (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:21:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:20:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: John Kacur Cc: Andi Kleen , acme@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf build fixes for opensuse 10.0 Message-ID: <20100922182053.GA9058@elte.hu> References: <20100922090336.GA5338@basil.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * John Kacur wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > >>> Fix the perf Makefile to compile on opensuse 10.0 > >>> > >>> -Werror in shipping code is usually a bad idea. Remove that. > >> > >> Why not remove it then when you ship the code, but leave it in the kernel > >> where it is useful? > > > > What do you mean with "you ship"? > > The subject of your email is "perf build fixes for opensuse 10.0" > So, I inferred from there. > > > I downloaded a kernel from kernel.org, it shipped to me and didn't > > build. > > Any reason you can't fix the build errors instead? Well, it's Andi - he has a well established track record for picking the worst possible solution for pretty much anything and then being passive-agressive difficult about it as if there was no tomorrow. It's typically quite time-consuming for everyone involved, with little productive output. YMMV. Here he could have done a dozen things to make his posting more useful: he could have included the build warnings in the changelog (he didnt), he could have tried to address them (he didnt), he could have argued for some specific warnings to be disabled on specific, well-established grounds, for example demonstrating that it _only_ produces false positives (he didnt) - etc. etc. He did none of those things. Thanks, Ingo