Hi, Curt wrote: > I'm just saying Edouard's head didn't get bitten off (no angry, gratuitous > attacks on the poor fellow),
Well, he and me perceived it as a painful defeat that a technically well founded wish was rejected on base of wrong technical statements and vague assumptions. Insults are easier to cope with than high ranking ignorance. Obviously, "head bitten off" is a rethorical exaggeration. But the cause was dead and all pointers given by Alan Cox were useless. Eduard's only supporter in this thread was ignored with his arguments. So if we want technical progress, be it for proper waiting time after automatically pulling in the tray by open(2), or be it better multi-SG_IO performance, then we need to be prepared to show that we took reasonable effort. And we must be prepared to insist up to own kernel programming experiments. > That an unfair decision might have been made concerning your "cause" is > something entirely different. Fair or unfair is not the point among programmers. We asked for a reliable opportunity for solving a problem that produces coasters from then expensive media. A high ranking list member had a bad hair day and the technical issue was therefore dismissed. The fact that he got away with this, demonstrates that we operated LKML in a faulty way. Lack of specs research and lack of potential for escalation. Have a nice day :) Thomas
