* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/22/2012 02:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > Others are not my fault :) > > > > > > Seriously, if Avi/Marcelo want to rewrite the ISR emulation > > > > Interesting POV, really. > > > > Did you ever notice that the kernel is a collaborative effort and not > > controlled by "Avi/Marcelo"? > > > > Did you ever notice that arch/x86/kvm is part of arch/x86? > > This is silly. Most of the time the kernel is advanced by > incremental patches. Sometimes it is advanced by minor or > major refactoring. It is never advanced by personal attacks > on contributors. Thomas wasn't so much doing a personal attack, it was pointing out stupidity and then it was mocking the repeated stupidity. He very politely explained his point of view (with which I agree), and then you guys pressed the issue and there's just so many hours in the merge window, so you asked to be flamed ... Avi, if you cannot be brought to properly reject incomplete patches going in the wrong direction then others maintainers interested in the code will do it. If you start to consistently require from KVM contributors "incremental updates" in the right direction, not piling crap on crap, then such incidents won't happen. This isn't the first such incident but there's hope that it might be the last one. The rule in arch/x86/ (and many other subsystems) is very simple: we don't speed up crappy code. If you want to speed it up then make it clean first, *then* is it suited for speedups. Crappy code is fragile and bound to introduce bugs, and crappy code leads to continued increased maintenance overhead, so crappy code is basically under a perpetual code freeze until it's uncrapped. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
