* Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't remember having ever said this. > > > > > > Your choices are: > > > [ ] prove your accusation that I said I > > > "knew about this bug before the feature hit mainline" > > > [ ] apologize > > > [ ] be the firest person ever in my killfile > > > > Adrian, you must be misunderstanding something. Where exactly in the > > above sentences do i assert that you "knew about this bug before the > > feature hit mainline"? I dont say that and cannot say that - > > Please explain your statement "before the feature hit mainline in > v2.6.16" in the above sentence of you in a reasonable way other than > that it should say I knew about it before the feature hit mainline. do you mean this paragraph: | 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. sorry, but i know of no rule of grammar that could read your interpretation into my two sentences. (and that's not surprising at all, because i never intended to even suggest that you knew about this breakage "before it went mainline" - why would i even care about such a detail?) 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
