From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759237AbYEACtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:49:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754802AbYEACt2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:49:28 -0400 Received: from smtp6.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.40]:41400 "EHLO smtp6.pp.htv.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754470AbYEACt2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:49:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 05:48:43 +0300 From: Adrian Bunk To: David Miller Cc: mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Message-ID: <20080501024843.GV29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> <20080430221936.GA27292@elte.hu> <20080430223509.GA31547@elte.hu> <20080430.155149.210532797.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080430.155149.210532797.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 03:51:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:35:09 +0200 > > > > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > What we need is not 'negative reinforcement'. That is just nasty, open > > > warfare between isolated parties, expressed in a politically correct > > > way. > > > > in more detail: any "negative reinforcement" should be on the > > _technical_ level, i.e. when changes are handled - not at the broad tree > > level. > > Sure, and I'll provide some right here. > > Ingo, let me know what I need to do to change your behavior in > situations like the one I'm about to describe, ok? > > Today, you merged in this bogus "regression fix". > > commit ae3a0064e6d69068b1c9fd075095da062430bda9 > Author: Ingo Molnar > Date: Wed Apr 30 00:15:31 2008 +0200 > > inlining: do not allow gcc below version 4 to optimize inlining > > fix the condition to match intention: always use the old inlining > behavior on all gcc versions below 4. > > this should solve the UML build problem. > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds > > Did you actually read the UML build failure report? > > Adrian Bunk specifically stated that the UML build failure regression > occurs with GCC version 4.3 > > Next, did you test this regression fix? > > Next, if you could not test this regression fix, did you wait > patiently for the bug reporter to validate your fix? Adrian > responded that it didn't fix the problem, but that was after > you queued this up to Linus already. >... You got the facts wrong, it is even worse: It was Ingo himself who reported this bug. [1] Ingo managed to send an untested and not working patch for a bug he reported himself... cu Adrian BTW: I finally figured out what is behind the problems on UML, and this is not related to any recent kernel changes. Patch comes when I'm awake again. [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/26/151 -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed