On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:24 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > It would be nice if you explained better what the code defect was, and > > > how you fixed it .. One could extract that from the code, but it's nice > > > if it's backed up with a text description.. Also you should CC lkml next > > > time. > > > > It would be nice if you'd stop being uber schoolmasterly. Luis > > explanation of the defect is entirely clear and the resulting fix is > > obvious. .. You could really look at the patch and figure out your self, > > that it needs no text description at all. Also you should comment on the > > nice patch itself next time. > > If all you've said was true I wouldn't have commented on it. There was > no text description of the code defect, and yes as I said I can get it > from the code but it's _nice_ when it's backed up with a text > description .. You really start to annoy me. There was a detailed bug description and the code defect is easy to see. If you neither have the interest nor the time to look at the actual _trivial_ _self explaining_ patch, then please look for some other playground to live out your wisenheimer airs and graces. > If your just going to start flames Thomas take it off list. Flames are only flames when they happen in public. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
