From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764101AbYEGXr0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 19:47:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757274AbYEGXrQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 19:47:16 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:45468 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757204AbYEGXrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 19:47:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 01:46:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Pavel Machek cc: Yinghai Lu , Adrian Bunk , Rene Herman , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel , hpa@zytor.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: 2.6.26, PAT and AMD family 6 In-Reply-To: <20080507231042.GN18516@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: References: <48210A71.1060409@keyaccess.nl> <86802c440805061939q39ff5500h3c9e229ecbc6b2e6@mail.gmail.com> <20080507124650.GD29935@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080507212343.GB14951@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080507221435.GH18516@elf.ucw.cz> <86802c440805071522r424b2011v7c0d852db4c4abfd@mail.gmail.com> <20080507223705.GJ18516@elf.ucw.cz> <20080507231042.GN18516@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 May 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2008-05-08 01:02:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > And then, factor out code marked # into separate function, and call it > > > from all three places. > > > > And while you are at it, why don't you send a patch which makes this > > all go away instead of wasting time producing pseudo code? > > Because I expect Ingo & Yinghai to do the work, and then test it, and > then add changelog, and then commit it. I expect Yinghai to learn how > to use functions in the process. Oh yes. He is the perfect kernel newbie who needs to be tought how to use functions. No, he is not. He provided a lot of valuable patches and he always was cooperative when his patches were reviewed. You are completely missing the point. We, the x86 maintainers accepted and committed that functional correct but stylistically imperfect patch. It's mainline now. We can spend tons of time to discuss how it could have done better, but isn't it one of the virtues of Open Source that we can actually prove that it can be done better ? From such a patch others can learn at least as much as from ivory tower post factum analysis. We can all sit down and resort to "I expect that XYZ do the work". Is this making things any better? Thanks, tglx P.S: we all wasted at least 10 times of the time to write that patch. :(