[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269294857.8599.90.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:54:17 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from
e820.c to fw_memmap.c
On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 21:57 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > You use that arguemnt ONE MORE FUCKING TIME and you'll end up in my killfile
> > with a auto-NACK reply of anything that looks like a patch from you.
>
> Does this mean you disagree with that? (I think it's pretty factual, last i
> checked the usage stats of devel kernels was somewhere around 99.7%.)
I disagree with that being a relevant argument in the technical
discussion on the relative merits of two implementations of a given
facility. I also disagree with your numbers, if you talk about
deployement, I would be very very surprised if ARM wasn't close to
on-par with x86.
> In any case, i dont dispute that LMB is a bit cleaner than kernel/early_res.c
> - and both are much cleaner than the new e820 kernel/fw_memmap.c code posted
> here by Yinghai.
>
> If you dont disagree then please spare me the insults. (or move me into your
> killfile)
Well, I find some of your arguments quite insulting too, but let's move
on.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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