On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:24 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > It would be nice if you explained better what the code defect was, and
> > > how you fixed it .. One could extract that from the code, but it's nice
> > > if it's backed up with a text description.. Also you should CC lkml next
> > > time.
> >
> > It would be nice if you'd stop being uber schoolmasterly. Luis
> > explanation of the defect is entirely clear and the resulting fix is
> > obvious. .. You could really look at the patch and figure out your self,
> > that it needs no text description at all. Also you should comment on the
> > nice patch itself next time.
>
> If all you've said was true I wouldn't have commented on it. There was
> no text description of the code defect, and yes as I said I can get it
> from the code but it's _nice_ when it's backed up with a text
> description ..
You really start to annoy me. There was a detailed bug description and
the code defect is easy to see. If you neither have the interest nor the
time to look at the actual _trivial_ _self explaining_ patch, then
please look for some other playground to live out your wisenheimer airs
and graces.
> If your just going to start flames Thomas take it off list.
Flames are only flames when they happen in public.
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
