From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758339AbYE0Rnp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 13:43:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755588AbYE0Rni (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 13:43:38 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:41084 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755490AbYE0Rnh (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 13:43:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 19:30:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Adrian Bunk cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dhaval Giani , vatsa Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] let GROUP_SCHED depend on BROKEN In-Reply-To: <20080527130828.GC20938@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: References: <20080527085830.GA20938@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <1211888849.12349.28.camel@twins> <20080527130828.GC20938@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> 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 Tue, 27 May 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:47:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >... > > FYI your attitude in the past few weeks is getting on my nerves - you > > act all self important but have not made a single contribution to the > > kernel above the level of a janitor-newbie. > > Not a single contribution to the kernel above the level of a > janitor-newbie? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/676733 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/14/498 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/28/561 > ... Adrian, do you really believe that the above is substantial ? You spotted a bug, decoded a bug report and fixed a Kconfig. Nobody says that this is a bad contribution, but it does not qualify you at all to act as the uber controller of the kernel. I always defended your contributions, which were questioned by a lot of kernel developers, but your recent attitude of artificially inflating bugs, which are either already resolved, have patches pending or are actively worked on is annoying a lot of kernel folks, not only Peter. I'm sure Peter would have accepted such a patch, if there was a good technical reason for it. Your book-keeper list of bugreports lacks technical insight and is not a good technical reason, it's just a strawman to gain control and/or importance. The bugzilla lists are good to remind us about outstanding problems, but they are in no way the sole technical measure for marking a functionality broken. Bugzilla is a tracking tool, nothing else. Using it as a technical measure is just like the management illusion that you can control a company with spread-sheets. Following your book-keeper logic we have to mark HIBERNATE, SUSPEND, NOHZ, HIGHRES, TSC and tons of other things BROKEN as well. Marking it BROKEN is the last resort when we have something unfixable which causes data corruption or crashes for which there is no active maintainer who's willing to stand up for breakage. Marking an incomplete default off feature, which does not result in crashes or data corruption, BROKEN is just wrong. EXPERIMENTAL is the correct category to get it exposed to users which helps to get information about the side effects. I enjoy working with Rafael on a technical level on those bugzilla issues, but your vain attempt to influence the kernel development by bureaucrazy will just lead to further ignorance vs. the kernel bugzilla as the signal/noise ratio already reached an high annoyance level since you started to abuse it for your renewed quality crusade. Your previous attempt to control kernel development via the regression list failed and you resigned. Now you come back and attack particular subsystem developers/maintainers with the same method. Do you really believe that abusing statistics for your exaggerated problem inflation is solving any problems ? No, it's causing more problems because you slander and frustrate active developers who are aware of the issues and are working hard to resolve them. The least thing they need is "motivation" in form of such patches. > Awaiting your apology For what ? For telling the truth ? Thanks, tglx