On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I'm really getting worried that you are apparently incapable of grasping > such _SIMPLE_ concepts. Who the heck cares whether you put in zeros or > whatever else in some of the fields? People use it to know how many > objects are allocated and sure SLUB knows that count, sheesh. How on > earth can you come up with a lame excuse like that? You dont like the > 'SLAB' portion of the name perhaps? Is it NIH again?
NIH? I wrote major portions of SLAB. I would be hating my own product. Could you get the facts straight at some point? This is getting weird. > Really, if your behavior is representative of how our SLAB allocator > will be maintained in the future then i'm very, very worried :-( You > ignore and downplay clear-cut regressions, you insult and attack > testers, you are incredibly stupid about user ABIs (or pretend to be so) > and you distort and mislead all the way. What will you be able to do in > the much less clear-cut cases?? I analyzed the issue and argued that the issues that one test showed in SLUB is a really special case and then you conclude that I ignore all regressions? I have addressed and responded to all reports of regressions that came to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
