[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090402173257.GA3755@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:32:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, henrix@...o.pt,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/genirq] genirq: do not execute DEBUG_SHIRQ when irq
setup failed
Jaswinder,
Let me transcribe what happened:
* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 18:08 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ
> > > > > > - if (irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) {
> > > > > > + if (!retval & (irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)) {
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * It's a shared IRQ -- the driver ought to be prepared for it
> > > > > > * to happen immediately, so let's make sure....
> > > > >
> > > > > What is this ?
[ Jaswinder misunderstands a patch and asks a rather stupid question
in a demanding tone and does not go into any level of detail why
he thinks the patch is wrong. Just a single look into the source
code file in question would have shown him his mistake. ]
> > > >
> > > > You looking at the wrong place.
[ Thomas, the genirq maintainer, points out Jaswinder's error
calmly. ]
> > > >
> > > > > There is no retval:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=blob;f=kernel/irq/manage.c;h=a3eb7baf1e46f2c735edb4cc44e0386cfbc4989e;hb=HEAD
> > > >
> > > > Care to read patches you want to comment on carefully _BEFORE_ you
> > > > start yelling at people and sending useless copies of the wrong
> > > > function around the world.
> > > >
> > > > The patch is perfectly fine and already applied.
[ Thomas also asks Jaswinder to think things through before wasting
other people's time. ]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I know somehow you applied it. When you will merge this branch with
> > > -tip/master then you will understand what I am saying.
[ Jaswinder is being difficult: he writes that Thomas "somehow"
applied the patch - ignoring the fact that Thomas is the
maintainer of this code.
Jaswinder is also suggesting in a condescending tone that Thomas
does not understand the issue - while the code is perfectly fine
and it is Jaswinder who is trivially wrong.
Wasting more of Thomas's time. ]
> > Jaswinder. I really start to get annoyed.
> >
[ Thomas, understandably, being into the 4th mail of a thread that
should not have happened at all, is getting annoyed. ]
> > That patch applies fine on master as well.
[ Thomas points out another mistake in Jaswinder's argument. ]
> > > Even function name is changed from:
> > >
> > > 713 int request_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> > >
> > > 857 int request_threaded_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
[ Jaswinder shows evidence of even more stupidity: he points out to
Thomas that a function changed its name, forgetting two things:
that 1) it is irrelevant and 2) Thomas did the rename in question. ]
> >
> > And why is this fcking relevant ?
[ Thomas is really annoyed at Jaswinder writing wrong,
irrelevant, time wasting mails without showing any sign of
understanding the issues and without admitting fault. ]
> >
>
> I am dead sure, you really need some good manners and need to
> learn many things.
[ Jaswinder, still not admitting his fault, compounds his mistakes
by being even more condescending. ]
Jaswinder, this is really not an acceptable pattern of behavior on
lkml.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists