[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5464709C0200007800047118@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:49:32 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Tony Jones" <tonyj@...e.de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s
>>> On 12.11.14 at 21:36, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing crashes with the unwind information being wrong. It is
>> solely you who was claiming (without proof) years ago that the
>> unwinder repeatedly caused issues.
>
> Umm. We had oopses showing it. Several times.
And I know you've been saying so before. The only problem here is
- these weren't sent my way for investigation, at least as far as I
recall.
>> Yes, we did find a bug or two over the years in it
>
> .. and you and Andi repeatedly refused to make the code more robust
> when I asked.
True, we considered _some_ of the requests you made wrong.
> Which is why I don't work with Andi or you directly any more,
People thinking differently than you in certain aspects shouldn't
preclude working with them directly, should it? Yes, it's a project you
started, but it has long become a community one, and as such
excluding people just because they don't conform to every opinion
of yours is, well, odd.
> But this patch I NAK'ed because the code is not readable, and the
> infrastructure is not bearable.
>
> Live with it.
I got the message.
Jan
--
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