|| ||Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>|
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements|
|| ||Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:26:56 +0200 (CEST)|
|| ||Alok Kataria <akataria-AT-vmware.com>,
Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan-AT-infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht-AT-vmware.com>,
Garrett Smith <garrett-AT-vmware.com>|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > Show some _taste_.
> > Tell the hardware dudes who made that crap so difficult
> No. I'm telling you, because that patch IS CRAP.
> > Over which _whole_ thing ? You want to have the very very fast thing,
> > which is not reliable under all circumstances as Alok pointed out and
> > I merily added a sanity check around that for testing.
> You can move that thing _out_ into a function of its own.
I know, but I'm not going to do that at 11PM.
> Here's a hint: we don't do cut-and-paste programming. And we don't get
> extra points for bloating a single function with the same unreadable code
> over and over and over again.
> How many copies do you want? And here's a hint: the answer is _one_. If
> you get any other answer, your patch is SHIT.
I didn't know that sending a test patch which is admittetly not pretty
is a capital crime nowadays.
In future I'll restrict myself to look at such stuff only on Monday to
Friday between 9AM and 5PM and send test/RFC patches only when they
got approved by the nonshitapproval committee, which holds a meeting
once a month.
to post comments)