linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070525102657.GA12131@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 12:27:04 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()

* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> It's done slightly differently now due to conflicting earlier changes, 
> but the end result should be about what you intended.  You're also 
> still credited in the cleanup patch of course.

you totally misunderstood me. My problem isnt credit. I've got enough 
credit for a lifetime ;-) I'd be equally upset if this happened with 
someone else's patches (in fact i'd be _more_ upset about it, because 
then i'd also be worried about us losing a contributor).

My problem is that (and this might just be an issue of communication) 
you often appear as treating the x86_64 code as 'your code' instead of 
treating it as 'our code'. Dropping part of my patch, not even telling 
whether you took the patches or not, not reacting to patches in a 
positive way are all external signs of that.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/