* Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I can only repeat that I did state several times on linux-kernel that > it never worked. > > If you consider it my fault that noone reads my emails then you are > right that it's my fault... well, i'm trying to assume the best, so please explain the following sequence of events to me: 1) as you said you knew about this bug - which bug causes more inlining overhead than hundreds of your uninlining patches combined. The bug was introduced ~2 years ago in -mm - before the feature hit mainline in v2.6.16. 2) the fix was really trivial and the intention of the feature was well understood - but the feature stayed as a NOP in the upstream kernel for 2 years. still, while you clearly had interest in this general area of the kernel (for example you wrote hundreds of tiny uninlining patches that work towards a similar goal), but strangely at the same time you neither fixed, nor properly escallated this _far_ bigger bug that causes +2.3% of text bloat on x86 [more than 120K of kernel text]. In fact: - you created bugzillas for far smaller bugs in the past, but you never created a bugzilla for this that i'm aware of. - you never directly raised this issue with us: "look guys, this thing really is broken - please reply to me with a fix". - you never said "this is a regression that should be fixed" to any of the regression lists. in other words: for about two years you knew about a bug that should have been fixed the day after it got introduced. i obviously cannot know what your intentions were with this conduct, so i'm eagerly awaiting your explanation for it. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
