From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757592AbZGCQeS (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:34:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756306AbZGCQeK (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:34:10 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41853 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756020AbZGCQeJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:34:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:58 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface Message-ID: <20090703163358.GA19685@elte.hu> References: <20090703095432.GC21141@elte.hu> <20090703110620.64fd1283@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703102234.GA32128@elte.hu> <20090703114431.37abd528@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703131727.GA3207@elte.hu> <20090703143746.0379b2ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703144754.GA13246@elte.hu> <20090703160230.093e422c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703155809.GA20121@elte.hu> <20090703172651.619162fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090703172651.619162fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 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 * Alan Cox wrote: > > > Ingo, if you've nothing better to do than quote out of context > > > and be offensive, perhaps you should go fix voyager support or > > > something productive instead. > > > > > Another question: i'm wondering why you brought up Voyager > > support here. Are you trying to insult me? > > [and] > > > Pointing out when your code is unclean does not count as an > > offense on lkml, i hope > > Nor then I trust does pointing out that voyager needs a bit of > work ;) Voyager is not upstream anymore so i dont understand your point ... I do think the Voyager code needs a lot of work, and i reviewed the patches that were submitted. I'm aware of no Voyager patch series that i find acceptable, and the things i noticed so far already mean quite a bit of work. Ingo