On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 08:05:57PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Well, you're in an unnecessary escalation mode as usual. Was the > > attitude really necessary? Chill out and read the thread again. > > Michal is saying the dwork->cpu assignment was bogus and I was > > refuting that. > > Right, but at the same time you could have admitted, that the current state is > buggy and needs a sanity check in unbound_pwq_by_node(). It's crashing. Of course it's buggy. The main discussion on the bug was on the other thread and I was trying to put out the confusions posted on this thread. > > Michal brought it up here but there's a different thread where Mike > > reported NUMA_NO_NODE issue and I already posted the fix. > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160203185425.GK14091@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 5 minute ago w/o cc'ing the people who participated in that discussion. Yeah, I got to the thread this morning and got your email right after sending out the patch. I don't know. The handling of this wasn't out of the norm. I asked this multiple times but let me try again. Can we please try to stay civil and technical? There are times where escalation is necessary but this one was gratuitous. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html