* sebastian.rot...@jpberlin.de <sebastian.rot...@jpberlin.de> [2009-04-25 
23:48]:
> I wrote Marco personaly, provided all informations and asked if he needs
> further benchmarks or what-so-ever.

did you find the commit between 4.1 and 4.2 or whatever your claim was
where it got slower?
I am sure what the answer is. You did no work, as usual, just whining.

> It's like the PF bug you know? You write a developer.. you receive no
> answer and the patch which gets released does not even fix the affected
> codebase but add's a "workaround".

I don't reply to your mail because it could lead to another reply from
you. banging my head against a wall is a more useful use of time and
energy than talking to you.

and now for the pf bug. as usual, you did nothing. you accidently
found some way to crash a box in a specific setup. you did no work at
all looking where the bug could be or what could trigger it. nothing.
I ran the command you claimed crashes pf. my box stayed up just fine.
if I hadn't mentioned it on icb and sthen trying against his box the
bug hadn't been found until now. You don't understand the bug yet
obviously. There is no workaround committed, there is the perfect fix
committed. I could go on explaning you that it was the NAT code
misbehaving on an ICMPv6 header in a IPv4 packet, but you wouldn't get
that anyway.

> I gonna do again a bonnie++ benchmark and again I will post my DMESG and
> again that will solve nothing.

right. because that is useless. you have been told what would be
useful, but that'd be work.

don't bother replying, I won't read it. and don't mail me personally
ever again.

-- 
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

Reply via email to