An ancient kernel hole is closed

Basically, there is a response to a specific point with a new point (or implied new point), without enough context to show how it's related, and there's just a pointless adversarial back and forth.

One of your recurring points in this thread is there was no public discussion of this new patch (or series of patches, really). Which is a fine point to raise, and worth a thread of its own (as it's mentioned in the LWN article). I don't disagree with the criticism of that point. But working it in as a response to an unrelated (IMO) one line quote, is not useful. Rather than a discussion on a good new, and related issue, it leads to a confused argument.

Note, I gave you credit (I felt) for answering my question about which vendors had already guarded against this (SuSE), and I conceded that that was damning evidence about the development and upstreaming process, and a *core* point to make. So, thanks for that.

I'm done with the arguing. I learned a few things, I hope it wasn't a waste of space for the site. However, I am not continuing it.