forked from corollari/linusrants
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
data.pkl
1876 lines (1876 loc) · 105 KB
/
data.pkl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
(lp0
(dp1
S'text'
p2
S'Why are you making up these completely invalid arguments? Because you are making them up....And given this *fact*, your denial that "PCI reboot should never be used" is counterfactual. It may be true in some theoretical "this is how the world should work" universe, but in the real world it is just BS. Why are you so deep in denial about this?'
p3
sS'hate'
p4
F0.27520477805473287
sa(dp5
g2
S'What drugs are you on? Your example is moronic, and against all _documented_ uses of chroot.'
p6
sg4
F0.3011801299692075
sa(dp7
g2
S'Oh christ. This is exactly what the scheduler has ALWAYS ALREADY DONE FOR YOU. ... Stop doing it. You get *zero* advantages from just doing what the scheduler natively does for you, and the scheduler does it *better*.'
p8
sg4
F0.401778212265373
sa(dp9
g2
S'Really. Shut up.... And if you aren\'t ok with "wasting time" on trying to give that kind of reassurances to users, then you shouldn\'t be working on the kernel. I\'m serious about this. You really *need* to understand that. Your job as a kernel developer is very much to support the users. Not try to make it easy for *you* at the cost of being nasty for *them*.'
p10
sg4
F0.40353982951892287
sa(dp11
g2
S'Andy, you need to lay off the drugs.'
p12
sg4
F0.4465161295570569
sa(dp13
g2
S"Because you screwed up that pull request, and I argue that you screwed up exactly *because* it's ambiguous and confusing."
p14
sg4
F0.4482903428839735
sa(dp15
g2
S'And that audit code really is aushit. I think I found a bug in it while just scanning it:'
p16
sg4
F0.4497502159878837
sa(dp17
g2
S'Congratulations, you seem to have found a whole new and unique way of screwing up ;) Linus "my mom called me \'special\' too" Torvalds'
p18
sg4
F0.4613196205893423
sa(dp19
g2
S'Are we trying to win some obfuscated C contest here?'
p20
sg4
F0.4868557751547127
sa(dp21
g2
S'Seriously. People who use BUG() statements like some kind of assert() are a menace to society. They kill machines.'
p22
sg4
F0.49000780599437455
sa(dp23
g2
S'David, what the heck are you doing? ... Seriously. Those commits now have TOTALLY MISLEADING summary messages. ...'
p24
sg4
F0.49979846957843743
sa(dp25
g2
S"If most of the oopses you decode are on your own machine with your own kernel, you might want to try to learn to be more careful when writing code. And I'm not even kidding."
p26
sg4
F0.5207378235075887
sa(dp27
g2
S"Grr. You missed the branch name. I can see from the SHA1 (and historical pull requests) that you meant the usual 'v4l_for_linus' branch, but please be more careful."
p28
sg4
F0.5254318615350907
sa(dp29
g2
S'David, I want to make it very clear that if you *ever* suggest another big include file cleanup, I will say "f*ck no" and block you from my emails forever. Ok? So don\'t bother. We\'re done with these kinds of games. Forever. It\'s not worth it, don\'t ever suggest it again for some other "cleanup".'
p30
sg4
F0.5272125566149333
sa(dp31
g2
S"Christ. This is so ugly that it's almost a work of art."
p32
sg4
F0.5435223306059218
sa(dp33
g2
S"WRONG. Alan, you're not getting it. Loading firmware as part of suspend/resume is WRONG."
p34
sg4
F0.5482156506373634
sa(dp35
g2
S"But dammit, if you build with debug_info and then strip the end result, you're just insane. You made your build take ten times longer, use ten times more diskspace, and then you throw it all away. Crazy."
p36
sg4
F0.5584212573284328
sa(dp37
g2
S'WHAT? NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY MAKES ANY SENSE.'
p38
sg4
F0.5609879912918221
sa(dp39
g2
S"That's just disgusting crazy talk. Christ, David, get a grip on yourself. ..."
p40
sg4
F0.5617764857509643
sa(dp41
g2
S'Ok. So your commit message and explanation was pure and utter tripe,'
p42
sg4
F0.56989378938028
sa(dp43
g2
S'NONE of your statements made any sense at all, since everything you talk about could have been done with a separate project. The only thing the lock-step does is to generate the kind of dependency that I ABSOLUTELY DETEST,'
p44
sg4
F0.5835065754744607
sa(dp45
g2
S"Ugh. Your diffstat is crap, because you don't show the inexact renames that are very abundant in the nouveau driver."
p46
sg4
F0.5854653490310119
sa(dp47
g2
S'You do realize that none of your arguments touched the "why should Linus merge the tree" question at all? Everything you said was about how it\'s more convenient for you and Ingo, not at all about why it should be better for anybody else. ... You\'re the only one working on it, so being convenient for you is the primary issue. Arguments like that actively make me not want to merge it, ...'
p48
sg4
F0.5858136278335135
sa(dp49
g2
S'...So stop complaining. Reverts really *are* just patches, Greg is 100% right, and you are simply wrong. ...and the fact that you *continue* to complain just makes you look stupid.'
p50
sg4
F0.5878761330573111
sa(dp51
g2
S'See what my complaint is? Not this half-assery that used to be a small random detail, and that the patch makes into an institutionalized and explicit half-assery. (And Mikhail - I\'m not ragging on you, even if I\'m ragging on the patch. I understand why you did it the way you did, and it makes sense exactly in the "let\'s reinstate old hackery" model. I just think we can and should do better than that, now that the "exchange" vs "move over" semantics are so explicit)'
p52
sg4
F0.5893440056351167
sa(dp53
g2
S'Adding Andrea to the Cc, because he\'s the author of that horridness. Putting Steven\'s test-case here as an attachement for Andrea, maybe that makes him go "Ahh, yes, silly case". Also added Kirill, because he was involved the last _PAGE_NUMA debacle.'
p54
sg4
F0.5894206644406071
sa(dp55
g2
S"Bullshit, Andrea. That's *exactly* what you said in the commit message for the broken patch that I complained about. ... and I pointed out that your commit message was garbage, and that it's not at all as easy as you claim, and that your patch was broken, and your description was even more broken.... Your commit message was garbage, and actively misleading. Don't make excuses."
p56
sg4
F0.5917782985862905
sa(dp57
g2
S'That\'s f*cking sad. You know *why* it\'s sad? ... Now, that should make you think about THE ABSOLUTE CRAP YOU MARK FOR -stable! ... Listen to yourself. In fact, there is a damn good solution": don\'t mark crap for stable, and don\'t send crap to me after -rc4. ... Greg, the reason you get a lot of stable patches seems to be that you make it easy to act as a door-mat. ... You may need to learn to shout at people.'
p58
sg4
F0.5947676945714664
sa(dp59
g2
S'Don\'t try to change the rules because you think you are "clever". You\'re only making things worse.'
p60
sg4
F0.5958461581038789
sa(dp61
g2
S'Please, Debabrata, humor me, and just try the patch. And try reading the source code. Because your statement is BS.'
p62
sg4
F0.5966823729721406
sa(dp63
g2
S'What a crock. That direct-IO code is hack-upon-hack. Whoever wrote it should be shot. ...'
p64
sg4
F0.5969650366936845
sa(dp65
g2
S'Why? You\'ve made this statement over and over and over again, and I\'ve dismissed it over and over and over again because I simply don\'t think it\'s true. It\'s simply a statement with nothing to back it up. Why repeat it? THAT is my main contention. I told you why I think it\'s actually actively untrue. ... So you make these unsubstantiated claims about how much easier it is, and they make no sense. You never explain *why* it\'s so magically easier. ... Anyway, I\'m done arguing. You can do what you want, but just stop misrepresenting it as being "linux-next" material unless you are willing to actually explain why it should be so.'
p66
sg4
F0.6018116750393498
sa(dp67
g2
S"Did anybody ever actually look at this sh*t-for-brains patch? Yeah, I'm grumpy. But I'm wasting time looking at patches that have new code in them that is stupid and retarded. This is the VM, guys, we don't add stupid and retarded code. LOOK at the code, for chrissake. Just look at it. And if you don't see why the above is stupid and retarded, you damn well shouldn't be touching VM code."
p68
sg4
F0.6033242178323879
sa(dp69
g2
S'Umm. I think your argument is totally braindead and wrong. My counter-argument is very simple: "So what?"'
p70
sg4
F0.6065125267770252
sa(dp71
g2
S'The games with "max_block" are hilarious. In a really sad way. That whole blkdev_get_blocks() function is pure and utter shit.'
p72
sg4
F0.609408807546925
sa(dp73
g2
S"I don't mind it if it's *one* line, and if people realize that the commentary in the commit in question was pure and utter shit. ... So really, I don't see the point of even a oneliner message. You guys know who the user is. There's no value in the message. Either you fix the user or you don't."
p74
sg4
F0.609458734134122
sa(dp75
g2
S'You make no sense. The commits you list were all on top of plain 4.0-rc2.'
p76
sg4
F0.6122008243719
sa(dp77
g2
S'It appears Intel is fixing their braindamage'
p78
sg4
F0.6132644828017194
sa(dp79
g2
S"BS. ...And you ignored the real issue: special-casing idle is *stupid*. It's more complicated, and gives fewer cases where it helps. It's simply fundamentally stupid and wrong."
p80
sg4
F0.6137721099390107
sa(dp81
g2
S'Yes, yes, it may "work", but I\'m not pulling that kind of hack just before a release....But dammit, using this kind of hackery, ... is just not acceptable.'
p82
sg4
F0.6153743800086194
sa(dp83
g2
S"We should definitely drop it. The feature is an abomination. I thought gcc only allowed them at the end of structs, in the middle of a struct it's just f*cking insane beyond belief."
p84
sg4
F0.6167289494632293
sa(dp85
g2
S"Your arguments only make sense if you accept those insane assumptions to begin with. And I don't."
p86
sg4
F0.6176119930963673
sa(dp87
g2
S'... Christ. That code is a mess. ...'
p88
sg4
F0.6192799969735421
sa(dp89
g2
S"Kay, this needs to be fixed. ... Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?"
p90
sg4
F0.6210100248236998
sa(dp91
g2
S"I'm ok with coding, I find your particular patch horrible. You add a dynamic allocator that will work *horribly* badly if people actually start using it for more complex cases, and then you use that for just about the least interesting case. And the way you do the dynamic allocator, nobody can ever allocate one of the wait-queue entries *efficiently* by just knowing that they are a leaf and there is never any recursive allocation...."
p92
sg4
F0.6253973681379242
sa(dp93
g2
S'... Stop the fear mongering already. So here\'s what I would suggest, and it is based on REAL SECURITY and on PUTTING THE USER FIRST instead of your continual "let\'s please microsoft by doing idiotic crap" approach. ... Quite frankly, *you* are what he key-hating crazies were afraid of. You peddle the "control, not security" crap-ware. The whole "MS owns your machine" is *exactly* the wrong way to use keys.'
p94
sg4
F0.6257981606555768
sa(dp95
g2
S'Hell no.... In exactly *WHAT* crazy universe does that make sense as an argument? It\'s like saying "I put literal shit on your plate, because there are potentially nutritious sausages that look superficially a bit like the dogshit I served you". Seriously. ... It\'s *exactly* the same argument as "dog poop superficially looks like good sausages". Is that really your argument? There is never an excuse for "usub_overflow()". It\'s that simple. No amount of _other_ overflow functions make that shit palatable.'
p96
sg4
F0.6295136856419652
sa(dp97
g2
S'Oh, please, that\'s a British-level understatement. It\'s like calling WWII "a small bother". That\'s too ugly to live.'
p98
sg4
F0.6301846210610489
sa(dp99
g2
S"Has Chris Ball been told what an incredible pain this kind of crap is, and that there's a damn good reason why WE DO NOT REBASE PUBLIC TREES THAT OTHERS MAY BE BASING THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON! Chris, can you hear me shouting? Don't do that."
p100
sg4
F0.630892693369288
sa(dp101
g2
S'Bullshit. That expectation is just a fact. ... We do not say "user mode shouldn\'t". Seriously. EVER. User mode *does*, and we deal with it. Learn it now, and stop ever saying that again. This is really starting to annoy me. Kernel developers who say "user mode should be fixes to not do that" should go somewhere else.'
p102
sg4
F0.6344161953611994
sa(dp103
g2
S'Christoph, stop arguing. Trust me, Paul knows memory ordering. You clearly do *not*.'
p104
sg4
F0.6383285547138791
sa(dp105
g2
S'Stop being a moron. Go back and read the "nobody can work with you".'
p106
sg4
F0.6389533107811186
sa(dp107
g2
S'But dammit, every single discussion I see, you use some *other* argument for it, like "people don\'t have initrd" or whatever crazy crap. That\'s what I was objecting to.'
p108
sg4
F0.6394392385636707
sa(dp109
g2
S'No. Really. No. ... Thomas, you\'re in denial. ... Your argument "it has a question mark in front of it" objection is bogus. ... I\'m just saying that your arguments to ignore CPU0 are pretty damn weak.'
p110
sg4
F0.6418009529098407
sa(dp111
g2
S"I'm a moron."
p112
sg4
F0.6428015433596385
sa(dp113
g2
S'You messed up the pull request too.. The branch name is missing from that git line, even if you did mention it a few lines earlier...'
p114
sg4
F0.6442688807221422
sa(dp115
g2
S'How f*cking hard is it for you to understand? Stop arguing about what MS wants. We do not care. We care bout the *user*. You are continually missing the whole point of security, and then you make some idiotic arguments about what MS wants you to do. It\'s irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what our *users* want us to do, and protecting *their* rights. As long as you seem to treat this as some kind of "let\'s please MS, not our users" issue, all your arguments are going to be crap.'
p116
sg4
F0.6470514200973677
sa(dp117
g2
S"If you really think that, I hope to God that you have nothing to do with the C standard or any actual compiler I ever use. Because such a standard or compiler would be shit. It's sadly not too uncommon"
p118
sg4
F0.647358037294621
sa(dp119
g2
S"Well, that's one way of reading that callchain. I think it's the *wrong* way of reading it, though. Almost dishonestly so."
p120
sg4
F0.6497172173159032
sa(dp121
g2
S"Greg, this is BS. ... so now you've re-introduced part of the problem, and marked it for stable too. The commit log shows nothing useful. ... And it really _isn't_ a good idea. ... Don't do this shit."
p122
sg4
F0.6507907365954533
sa(dp123
g2
S"And the commit seems to be pure shit. Why is it pure shit? Look at what users are left. THERE ARE NO USERS THAT SET THAT FIELD ANY MORE! ... I've pulled the changes for now, but I absolutely *detest* seeing things like this. ..."
p124
sg4
F0.6520034837534499
sa(dp125
g2
S"Christ, why can't people learn?"
p126
sg4
F0.6547076153082676
sa(dp127
g2
S'and this, btw, is just another example of why MCE hardware designers are f*cking morons that should be given extensive education about birth control and how not to procreate.'
p128
sg4
F0.6558956701473204
sa(dp129
g2
S"Yeah, I'm a f*cking moron."
p130
sg4
F0.658394270909275
sa(dp131
g2
S'Oh christ. What insane version of gcc is that? Can you please make a gcc bug-report? ... is just so fricking stupid that it\'s outright buggy. That\'s just crazy. It\'s demented. It\'s an "and" with all bits set.'
p132
sg4
F0.6633325780254008
sa(dp133
g2
S'Absolutely. Anybody who does that is just terminally confused. "return()" is in no way a function. ... Here\'s an example of a really bad use of "sizeof" that doesn\'t have the parenthesis around the argument: sizeof(*p)->member. Quite frankly, if you do this, you should be shot. ... And let\'s face it: if you write your code so that it\'s easy to parse for a machine, and ignore how easy it is to parse for a human, I don\'t want you writing kernel code. ...'
p134
sg4
F0.6648610850175812
sa(dp135
g2
S"Ok, this code is a rats nest. ... The code is crazy. It's an unreadable mess. Not surprising that it then also is buggy.... Looking at the code, I don't think it has been written by a human. ... Some of that code is clearly pure garbage. ... In fact, it's *all* crap."
p136
sg4
F0.6655628135523088
sa(dp137
g2
S'I\'ve pulled this, but I was pretty close to saying "screw this shit". Look at commit 9a630d15f16d, and pray tell me why those kinds of commit logs are excusable? That commit message is totally worthless noise. ... Seriously. ... That commit 9a630d15f16d is pure garbage. It\'s not the only crappy one, but it really does stand out. ...I\'d really prefer it to talk about what it merges and why, but it\'s still *much* better than your completely information-free merge message.'
p138
sg4
F0.666816599355471
sa(dp139
g2
S'Christ, Mel. Your reasons in b22d127a39dd are weak as hell, and then you come up with *THIS* shit instead: ... Heck no. In fact, not a f*cking way in hell. Look yourself in the mirror, Mel. This patch is ugly, and *guaranteed* to result in subtle locking issues, and then you have the *gall* to quote the "uhh, that\'s a bit ugly due to some trivial duplication" thing in commit... compared to the diseased abortion you just posted...'
p140
sg4
F0.6688304255216247
sa(dp141
g2
S"I really dislike this one.... The other patches look sane, this one I really don't like. You may have good reasons for it, but it's disgusting."
p142
sg4
F0.6700635035159841
sa(dp143
g2
S"So you're potentially making things worse for just about everybody, in order to fix a problem that almost nobody can actually see. And apparently you don't even know the problem.. and as I already explained, THAT IS PURE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. It may make things WORSE. On all the things you haven't run to check that it does better. You just stated something that is not at all necessarily true. .... That's pure bullshit. ... And yet you go on to say that it will fix performance problems THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT! After seeing *proof* to the exact contrary behavior! What f*cking planet are you from, again? Christ, that's hubris. ..."
p144
sg4
F0.6735483994285129
sa(dp145
g2
S'Ingo, stop this idiotic nonsense. You seem to think that "kvmtool is useful for kernel" is somehow relevant. IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.'
p146
sg4
F0.6749470293279405
sa(dp147
g2
S"Ok, I'm sorry, but that's just pure bullshit then. ... This code is pure and utter garbage. It's beyond the pale how crazy it is."
p148
sg4
F0.6760944134005538
sa(dp149
g2
S'So stop spouting garbage.'
p150
sg4
F0.6763883775150119
sa(dp151
g2
S'Christ, we should just try to get rid of the personality bits entirely, they are completely insane'
p152
sg4
F0.6798668047659948
sa(dp153
g2
S'Quite frankly, this is f*cking moronic.'
p154
sg4
F0.6876318867401255
sa(dp155
g2
S"Grr. I've pulled it, but looking at that history, it's just pure and utter f*cking garbage."
p156
sg4
F0.6902609711816332
sa(dp157
g2
S"That statement is so nonsensical that I can't get past it. When you understand why it is nonsensical, you understand why the bit is cleared. Feel free to bring this up again without that idiotic statement as an argument."
p158
sg4
F0.6908697958193426
sa(dp159
g2
S'So I\'m not saying "ifconfig is wonderful". It\'s not. But I *am* saying that "changing user interfaces and then expecting people to change is f*cking stupid".... Because people who think that "we\'ll just redesign everything" are actually f*cking morons. Really. There\'s a real reason the kernel has the "no regression" policy. And that reason is that I\'m not a moron.'
p160
sg4
F0.6909405395866941
sa(dp161
g2
S"I'll let you think about just how stupid that comment was for a moment."
p162
sg4
F0.69095835350407
sa(dp163
g2
S'And what *possible* situation could make that "_once()" version ever be valid? None. It\'s bogus. It\'s crap. It\'s insane. There is no way that it is *ever* a valid question to even ask.'
p164
sg4
F0.691796243178145
sa(dp165
g2
S"...You did *two* of the merges within hours of each other! ... That's just crazy. The fact that you then say that you have some kind of *excuse* for that craziness is just sad. Stop doing that. It's stupid. It just makes it harder for everybody to see what you are doing. ...Can't you see how crazy that is?"
p166
sg4
F0.6974132745024295
sa(dp167
g2
S'Yes it damn well is. Stop the f*cking stupid arguments, and instead listen to what I say. Here. Let me bold-face the most important part for you, so that you don\'t miss it in all the other crap: ... Nothing else. Seriously. Your "you can\'t do it because we copy backwards" arguments are pure and utter garbage, ... You\'re complicating the whole thing for no good reason. ...'
p168
sg4
F0.698227424180082
sa(dp169
g2
S"Wrong. ... so you're just full of it. ... Checking the MCE data is stupid and wrong. Stop doing it, and stop making idiotic excuses for it. ...you are just doing moronic things. Stop doing stupid things."
p170
sg4
F0.7003878157022334
sa(dp171
g2
S'The reading comprehension here is abysmal. ...And none of that matters for my argument AT ALL.'
p172
sg4
F0.7005104776547095
sa(dp173
g2
S"So get your act together, and push back on the people you are supposed to manage. Because this is *not* acceptable for post-rc5, and I'm giving this single warning. Next time, I'll just ignore the sh*t you send me. Comprende?"
p174
sg4
F0.7013781127365946
sa(dp175
g2
S'Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless "max_sane_readahead()"? Or is there some *real* reason we should care? Because if it really is just for max_sane_readahead(), then for the love of God, let us just do this ... and bury this whole idiotic thread.'
p176
sg4
F0.7097152222724888
sa(dp177
g2
S'What part of "We don\'t break user space" do you have trouble understanding? ... End of discussion. I don\'t understand why people have such a hard time understanding such a simple concept. ... Seriously, IT IS THAT SIMPLE.'
p178
sg4
F0.7116556669807639
sa(dp179
g2
S'Absolutely not. I will not take this, and it\'s stupid in the extreme. ...That\'s just crazy talk. ... So I don\'t know how many ways I can say "NO", but I\'ll not take anythign like this. It\'s *completely* wrong.'
p180
sg4
F0.716957130137101
sa(dp181
g2
S"That's a technical issue, Stefani. ... And when Fengguang's automatic bug tester found the problem, YOU STARTED ARGUING WITH HIM. Christ, well *excuuse* me for being fed up with this pointless discussion."
p182
sg4
F0.7183062080139838
sa(dp183
g2
S'Really. That\'s it. Claiming that that is "complicated" and needs a helper function is not something sane people do. A fifth-grader that isn\'t good at math can understand that. In contrast, nobody sane understands "usub_overflow(a, b, &res)". So really. Stop making inane arguments.'
p184
sg4
F0.7193511040393217
sa(dp185
g2
S'What BS is that? If you use an "atomic_store_explicit()", by definition you\'re either (a) f*cking insane (b) not doing sequential non-synchronizing code ... and a compiler that assumes that the programmer is insane may actually be correct more often than not, but it\'s still a shit compiler. Agreed? So I don\'t see how any sane person can say that speculative writes are ok. They are clearly not ok. Speculative stores are a bad idea in general. They are completely invalid for anything that says "atomic". This is not even worth discussing.'
p186
sg4
F0.7208914928670503
sa(dp187
g2
S'This is the kind of totally bogus crap that no sane person should ever spout. Stop it.'
p188
sg4
F0.7228884292942104
sa(dp189
g2
S'And you\'re happy shilling for a broken model? ... Your arguments constantly seem to miss that rather big point. You think this is about bending over when MS whispers sweet nothings in your ear.. ... You, on the other hand, seem to have drunk the cool-aid on the whole "let\'s control the user" crap. Did you forget what security was all about?'
p190
sg4
F0.724450098397838
sa(dp191
g2
S"No it's not. ... which is entirely and utterly pointless. Christ, the amount of confusion in that tree. ... Don't do this kind of thing. That branch is pointless, and just confused you."
p192
sg4
F0.7260907702568797
sa(dp193
g2
S'Ugh. I pulled it, but things like this makes me want to dig my eyes out with a spoon:...'
p194
sg4
F0.7282438863837265
sa(dp195
g2
S"No, it really isn't. You still seem to be in denial: ... NO YOU DID NOT! Stop claiming that. You didn't actually test what you sent me. YOU TESTED SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Do you really not see the difference? Because that's a honking big difference. ..."
p196
sg4
F0.730275869385983
sa(dp197
g2
S'NOOO!... Get rid of the f*cking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends. ... Hell f*cking no. The "something like so" is huge and utter crap, because the barrier is on the wrong side.'
p198
sg4
F0.7311487138680152
sa(dp199
g2
S"Ok, I'm used to fixing up your whitespace and lack of capitalization, but you're getting so incoherent that I can no longer even parse it well enough to fix it up. English *is* your first language, right?"
p200
sg4
F0.7338889133156115
sa(dp201
g2
S"Oh christ, I also cannot be bothered to continue arguing with you since you seemingly randomly drop other people from the discussion. So don't expect any more replies from me."
p202
sg4
F0.7345173280929542
sa(dp203
g2
S'Ingo, stop it already! This is *exactly* the kind of "blame everybody else than yourself" behavior that I was talking about earlier. ... Ingo, look your code in the mirror some day, and ask yourself: why do you think this fixes a "regression"? ...So by trying to make up for vsyscalls only in your numbers, you are basically trying to lie about regressions, and try to cover up the schednuma regression by fixing something else. ... See? That\'s bogus. When you now compare numbers, YOU ARE LYING. You have introduced a performance regression, and then trying to hide it by making something else go faster. ...The same is true of all your arguments about Mel\'s numbers wrt THP etc. Your arguments are misleading - either intentionally, of because you yourself didn\'t think things through. ...'
p204
sg4
F0.7351130067196627
sa(dp205
g2
S'I never *ever* want to see this code ever again. Sorry, but last time was too f*cking painful.'
p206
sg4
F0.7367643369256935
sa(dp207
g2
S'This looks totally invalid....Your patch is horribly wrong.'
p208
sg4
F0.7401150258921102
sa(dp209
g2
S"No it's not. Please fix your crappy script. First off, that '#' is wrong. It should be a space."
p210
sg4
F0.7426792635047614
sa(dp211
g2
S'And no, we should *not* play games with "tlb->local.next". That just sounds completely and utterly insane. That\'s a hack, it\'s unclear, it\'s stupid, and it\'s connected to a totally irrelevant implementation detail, namely that random RCU freeing. Set a flag, for chrissake.'
p212
sg4
F0.743261689308738
sa(dp213
g2
S'What the F*CK is wrong with people?'
p214
sg4
F0.7451454396703296
sa(dp215
g2
S'...And a C++ person who says that "(vodi *)0" is just any "void *" is a *fucking*moron*, ...There is absolutely *zero* excuse for the idiotic traditional C++ brain damage of saying "NULL cannot be \'(void *)0\', because \'void *\' will warn". Anybody who says that is lying. ... The C++ people? They are morons, and they never got it, and in fact they spent much of their limited mental effort arguing against it. ... The whole "it\'s a stronger type system, so NULL has to be 0" is pure and utter garbage. It\'s wrong. It\'s stupid. ... Yeah, I\'m not a fan of C++. It\'s a cruddy language.'
p216
sg4
F0.7454519550857
sa(dp217
g2
S"No, guys. That cannot work. It's a completely moronic idea."
p218
sg4
F0.7462408239078641
sa(dp219
g2
S"Yeah, it's a hack, and it's wrong, and we should figure out how to do it right."
p220
sg4
F0.7463157575296538
sa(dp221
g2
S'Grr. This is still bullshit. Doing this: ... is fundamentally crap ... So doing *any* of these calculations in bytes is pure and utter crap. ... Anything that works in bytes is simply pure crap. And don\'t talk to me about 64-bit math and doing it in "u64" or "loff_t", that\'s just utterly moronic too. ... So the math is confused, the types are confused, and the naming is confused. Please, somebody check this out, because now *I* am confused. And btw, that whole commit happened too f*cking late too. ... I\'m grumpy, because all of this code is UTTER SH*T, and it was sent to me. Why?'
p222
sg4
F0.7469102462898389
sa(dp223
g2
S'My point is that I have sixteen pointless messages in my mbox, half of which are due to just your argumentative nature.'
p224
sg4
F0.7469964835334935
sa(dp225
g2
S"So this is definitely crap. You can't return an error. ... Same deal. Returning an error is wrong."
p226
sg4
F0.74723713946293
sa(dp227
g2
S"This seems to be just pure stupid. ...Even the help message is pure and utter garbage ... Asking the user questions that make no f*cking sense to ask is stupid. And I'm not knowingly pulling stupid crap."
p228
sg4
F0.7481964958616176
sa(dp229
g2
S'And if you cannot understand what tens of people have tried to explain to you, you are just f*cking stupid.'
p230
sg4
F0.7488398264300431
sa(dp231
g2
S'They may be readable, but they are total shit. ... So no. Hell no.'
p232
sg4
F0.7490401448416896
sa(dp233
g2
S'And this is just insanity. The "barrier()" cannot *possibly* do anything sane. If it really makes a difference, there is again some serious problem with the whole f*cking thing. NAK on the patch until sanity is restored. This is just total voodoo programming.'
p234
sg4
F0.7493741531193527
sa(dp235
g2
S'This is why I don\'t like it when I see Torvald talk about "proving" things. It\'s bullshit.'
p236
sg4
F0.7511155197081347
sa(dp237
g2
S'I also call bullshit on your "it will surely be fixed when we know what\'s the right fix" excuses. The fact is, you\'ve spent the last several months blaming everybody but yourself, and actively told people to stop blaming you: ... despite having clearly seen the patch (you *replied* to it, for chissake, and I even told you in that same thread why that reply was wrong at the time). ... Kay, you are so full of sh*t that it\'s not funny. You\'re refusing to acknowledge your bugs, you refuse to fix them even when a patch is sent to you, and then you make excuses for the fact that we have to work around *your* bugs, and say that we should have done so from the very beginning. Yes, doing it in the kernel is "more robust". But don\'t play games, and stop the lying.'
p238
sg4
F0.7526992070200629
sa(dp239
g2
S'Rik, *LOOK* at the code like I asked you to, instead of making excuses for it. I\'m not necessarily arguing with what the code tries to do. I\'m arguing with the fact that the code is pure and utter *garbage*. It has two major (and I mean *MAJOR*) problems, both of which individually should make you ashamed for ever posting that piece of shit: The obvious-without-even-understanding-semantics problem: - it\'s humongously stupidly written. It calculates that \'flush_remote\' flag WHETHER IT GETS USED OR NOT. Christ. I can kind of expect stuff like that in driver code etc, but in VM routines? Yes, the compiler may be smart enough to actually fix up the idiocy. That doesn\'t make it less stupid. The more-subtle-but-fundamental-problem: - regardless of how stupidly written it is on a very superficial level, it\'s even more stupid in a much more fundamental way. ... In other words, everything that was added by that patch is PURE AND UTTER SHIT. And THAT is what I\'m objecting to. ... Because everything I see about "flush_remote" looks just wrong, wrong, wrong. And if there really is some reason for that whole flush_remote braindamage, then we have much bigger problems ... So that patch should be burned, and possibly used as an example of horribly crappy code for later generations. At no point should it be applied.'
p240
sg4
F0.7537096548107397
sa(dp241
g2
S"Umm. That just smells like BS to me. ... Also, your protection claim seems to be invalidated by the actual code. ... So your claim that it hedges around it by looking at the inquiry data is pure crap. It's simply not true. ... So no, I simply don't see the careful testing or the checking that you claim exists."
p242
sg4
F0.7537251528715909
sa(dp243
g2
S'Ugh: ... Can we please move that abortion into arch/powerpc/? Instead of making generic code even uglier..'
p244
sg4
F0.7552048443254205
sa(dp245
g2
S"Why do you think it's not acceptable? Why do you raise a stink *one* day after the patch - that seems to not be very important - is sent out?... I don't think the patch is necessarily wrong, but I don't see why it would be critical, and I *definitely* don't see why the f*ck you are making a big deal of it. Go away, stop bothering people."
p246
sg4
F0.7560838366009982
sa(dp247
g2
S'Tejun, absolutely nothing "justifies" things if they break. ...And if nothing breaks, you don\'t need the excuses. In other words, I\'ll happily pull this, but your excuses for it are wrong-headed. There is no "crazyness justifies this". That\'s crap. ... None of this "the interface is crazy, so we can change it". Because that is pure and utter BS. Whether the interface is crazy or not is *entirely* irrelevant to whether it can be changed or not. The only thing that matters is whether people actually _trigger_ the issue you have in reality, not whether the issue is crazy.'
p248
sg4
F0.7562240955547168
sa(dp249
g2
S"You're a fucking moron. ... So just reverting it from stable, *WITHOUT LEARNING THE LESSON*, is not a no-op at all, it's a sign of being a f*cking moron. I'm stupider for just reading your email. Go away."
p250
sg4
F0.7573115381946609
sa(dp251
g2
S".. so your whole argument is bogus, because it doesn't actually fix anything else.... You're not fixing the problem, you're fixing one unimportant detail that isn't worth fixing that way."
p252
sg4
F0.7580508860722449
sa(dp253
g2
S"NAK NAK NAK. Ingo, please don't take any of these patches if they are starting to make NUMA scheduling be some arch-specific crap. Peter - you're way off base. You are totally and utterly wrong for several reasons: ...so making some arch-specific NUMA crap is *idiotic*. Your argument ...is pure crap. ... Christ, people. ...is just f*cking moronic. ... Stop the idiocy. ..."
p254
sg4
F0.7613214610690521
sa(dp255
g2
S"That's absolutely insane. It's insane for two reasons: - it's not SUFFICIENT. ... - it's POINTLESS and WRONG. ..."
p256
sg4
F0.7622273445742606
sa(dp257
g2
S"Ugh. Ok, so that's a disgusting hack, but it's better than messing up the generic PCI subsystem. At least it's a disgusting hack in the IOV code."
p258
sg4
F0.7625617442861903
sa(dp259
g2
S"The softirq semantics are perfectly fine. Don't blame softirq for the fact that irq_exit() has had shit-for-brains for a long time. ... Don't blame the wrong code here."
p260
sg4
F0.764044129341103
sa(dp261
g2
S'Bullshit. That\'s exactly the wrong kind of thinking. ... This whole discussion has been f*cking moronic. The "security" arguments have been utter shite with clearly no thinking behind it, the feature is total crap ... and I\'m seriously considering just getting rid of this idiotic dmesg_restrict thing entirely. Your comment is the very epitome of bad security thinking.'
p262
sg4
F0.7643113407762194
sa(dp263
g2
S"Finally, people - your merge messages suck. Leaving the list of conflicting files without talking about what the conflict actually was is *not* a good merge message. Len, you're not the only one that does this, but it is yet another reason why I absolutely detest some of the merges I see: they are just very uninformative, and don't add anything useful to the tree - quite the reverse. They hide a problem, without actually talking about what the problem was. ...And yes, sometimes my merge messages suck too (although I've tried very hard to become better at them)."
p264
sg4
F0.7644553813120065
sa(dp265
g2
S"Ugh, looking more at the patch, I'm getting more and more convinces that it is pure and utter garbage. ... WTF? ... This is crap, guys. Seriously. Stop playing russian rulette with this code."
p266
sg4
F0.7664637795638153
sa(dp267
g2
S"Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest. ... If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's *your* issue."
p268
sg4
F0.7680006651105272
sa(dp269
g2
S'sizeof without parenthesis is an abomination, and should never be used. ... The sane solution is: just add the f*cking parenthesis, and don\'t use the parsing oddity. ... And talking about "prefix operators" is a moronic thing to do. ... Think of it as a function, and get over your idiotic pissing match over how long you\'ve both known C. That\'s irrelevant. ...'
p270
sg4
F0.7684528654812404
sa(dp271
g2
S'Ugh. This patch makes my eyes bleed. ... So I guess this patch fixes things, but it does make me go "That\'s really *really* ugly".'
p272
sg4
F0.7714453966473782
sa(dp273
g2
S'No. I think it makes sense to put a big warning on any users you find, and fart in the general direction of any developer who did that broken pattern. Because code like that is obviously crap.'
p274
sg4
F0.7720327748326408
sa(dp275
g2
S"We've been here before, haven't we? There's so much wrong with this that it's not funny. ... And I know you can do them, because you've done them in the past. So please don't continue to do the above."
p276
sg4
F0.7725198031833707
sa(dp277
g2
S'So adding the loop looks like just voodoo programming, not actually fixing anything.'
p278
sg4
F0.7767215408126428
sa(dp279
g2
S'... Christ, people. Learn C, instead of just stringing random characters together until it compiles (with warnings). ... There are arguments for them, but they are from weak minds. ... A later patch then added onto the pile of manure by adding *another* broken array argument, ...It\'s basically just lying about what is going on, and the only thing it documents is "I don\'t know how to C". ... Please people. ...'
p280
sg4
F0.777722536063855
sa(dp281
g2
S'... However, please don\'t use the *INSANE* ARM "v8" naming. There must be something in the water in Cambridge, but the ARM "version" naming is just totally broken. ...maybe it all makes sense if you have drunk the ARM cool-aid and have joined the ARM cult, but to sane people and outsiders, it is just a f*cking mess. So - aarch64 is just another druggie name that the ARM people came up with after drinking too much of the spiked water in cambridge. ... - armv8 is totally idiotic and incomprehensible to anybody else...complete and utter nonsense. It\'s only confusing. Christ. Seriously. The insanity is so strong in the ARM version names that it burns. If it really makes sense to anybody ... you need to have your head examined. So please don\'t use "aarch64", because it\'s just f*cking crazy. And please don\'t use "armv8", because it\'s just completely retarded and confused.'
p282
sg4
F0.7811281591516777
sa(dp283
g2
S"Stop right there. ... This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES. So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken, stop making excuses, and stop blathering. End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely. Seriously. ... Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top priorities. ... Breaking existing binaries ... is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer can do. Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point* of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some research project. We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing. Really."
p284
sg4
F0.7825150243941044
sa(dp285
g2
S'Whee. Third time is the charm. I didn\'t know my email address was *that* hard to type in correctly.Usually it\'s the "torvalds" that trips people up, but you had some issues with "foundation", didn\'t you ;)'
p286
sg4
F0.7830813361037369
sa(dp287
g2
S'Stop this idiocy. ... The fact that you then continually try to make this a "kernel issue" is just disgusting. Talking about the kernel solving it "properly" is pretty dishonest, when the kernel wasn\'t the problem in the first place.'
p288
sg4
F0.7841595442902811
sa(dp289
g2
S"...which at least isn't butt ugly. ... Who is in charge of the whole 'is_virtfn' mess? How realistic is it to fix that crud?"
p290
sg4
F0.7865562146315987
sa(dp291
g2
S'Sorry, you\'re wrong. And Rafael *told* you why you are wrong, and you ignored him and talked about "exec" some more. So go back and read Rafael\'s email. ... So please, read the emails. People actually *agree* that the name may be a bit misleading, but instead of harping on bogus issues, just read the emails from people like Rafael about it. So STOP with this idiocy already. ... Seriously. Get that through your head already.'
p292
sg4
F0.7873434558648165
sa(dp293
g2
S'Your original email used "[email protected]", which goes into a kind-of-black hole. Please fix whatever crazy-old address book you have - that address is old, old, old. Oh, and your *new* email had totally broken email headers too. WTF? That ... is just pure and utter garbage. What the hell is wrong with your email setup? When I reply to that email, I sure as hell want to reply to *you*, not to *me*. So fix your email, right now it\'s terminally broken. Will look at the pull requests now that I actually see them, and when I\'m over being upset by your idiotic email issues.'
p294
sg4
F0.7895454699421509
sa(dp295
g2
S"Really. Stop this idiocy. We have gone through this before. It's a disaster."
p296
sg4
F0.7899533604712485
sa(dp297
g2
S'I think that code is bad, and you should feel bad.'
p298
sg4
F0.7907568143335979
sa(dp299
g2
S'I really get the feeling that somebody needs to go over this patch-series with a fine comb to fix these kinds of ugly things'
p300
sg4
F0.7918722805993774
sa(dp301
g2
S'Why? This change looks completely and utterly bogus.... Guys, this is crap. ... That\'s utter bullshit, guys. ...Exposing it at all is a disgrace. making it "default y" is doubly so. ... I\'m not pulling crap like this. Get your act together. Why the heck should _I_ be the one that notices that this commit is insane and stupid? Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine. ... This cavalier attitude about asking people idiotic questions MUST STOP. Seriously. This is not some "small harmless bug". This mindset of crazy questions is a major issue!'
p302
sg4
F0.796587186134485
sa(dp303
g2
S"I can't even begin to say whether this is a good solution or not, because that if-conditional makes me want to go out and kill some homeless people to let my aggressions out. Can we please agree to *never* write code like this? Ever?"
p304
sg4
F0.7975509400529777
sa(dp305
g2
S'Mark, I pulled this, but I was *this* close to unpulling it because it\'s such an unholy mess. You seem to do the crazy "daily pull" crap that NOBODY IS EVER SUPPOSED TO DO. There are lots of totally pointless ... merge commits, and no, that\'s not ok.... Just don\'t do it. There\'s no excuse. The *only* time you should merge is when a sub lieutenant asks you to - and if you have people who work with you and ask you to do pointless merges almost every day, just tell them to shut the f*ck up already!...But dammit, don\'t then do development on top of that kind of crap - use that branch *only* for linux-next, not for anything else, and don\'t ask me to pull that polluted piece of sh*t. ...But never *ever* have those stupid pointless "Merge remote-tracking branch \'regulator/for-linus\' into regulator-next" in the branch you actually use for development, and the branch you send to me.'
p306
sg4
F0.7987151585936965
sa(dp307
g2
S'... I don\'t understand why this seems to be so hard for people to understand. ...this whole thread is a wonderful example of how F*CKING STUPID it was to even consider it. ... SO STOP DOING ABI CHANGES. WE DON\'T DO THEM. ...but anybody who does it on purpose "just because" should not be involved in kernel development (or library development for that matter).'
p308
sg4
F0.8008857942638532
sa(dp309
g2
S'Why? You\'re wrong. I mean, anybody who disagrees with me is pretty much wrong just on pure principles, but I actually mean a deeper kind of wrong than that. I mean a very objective "you\'re clearly wrong". ... .. and then you use a totally bogus example to try to "prove" your point. ... Your example is pure and utter shit, since you still get confused about what is actually const and what isn\'t. ... But that argument is BULLSHIT, because the fact is, the function *doesn\'t* do what you try to claim it does.'
p310
sg4
F0.8011116731689472
sa(dp311
g2
S'That\'s insane. ... It is simply not sensible to have a "wait_for_unlock()" that then synchronizes loads or stores that happened *before* the wait. That\'s some crazy voodoo programming. ... Or just take the damn lock, and don\'t play any games at all.'
p312
sg4
F0.8014264696501292
sa(dp313
g2
S'*NEITHER* of your points actually address my issue. ... IOW, why the hell do you set a name that is so useful that no sane person would ever want to use it? ... So let me be more blunt and direct: which part of "that\'s f*cking stupid" do you disagree with? So instead of making drivers do stupid things because you\'ve made the input layer names so damn useless, why don\'t you make the input layer use better naming? Doesn\'t that seem to be the *smart* thing to do?'
p314
sg4
F0.801731111695407
sa(dp315
g2
S"This was obviously brought on by my frustration with the currently nasty do_notify_resume() always returning to iret for the task_work case, and PeterZ's patch that fixed that, but made the asm mess even *worse*."
p316
sg4
F0.8017644563947721
sa(dp317
g2
S'Stop this idiocy. ... And that disgusting "overflow_usub()" in no way makes the code more readable. EVER. So stop just making things up.... It wasn\'t more efficient, it wasn\'t more legible, and it simply had no excuse for it. Stop making excuses for shit.'
p318
sg4
F0.8022031025193204
sa(dp319
g2
S"Basically, I absolutely hate the notion of us doing something unsynchronized, when I can see us undoing a mmap that another thread is doing. It's wrong. You also didn't react to all the *other* things that were wrong in that patch-set. The games you play with !fatal_signal_pending() etc are just crazy. End result: I absolutely detest the whole thing. I told you what I consider an acceptable solution instead, that is much simpler and doesn't have any of the problems of your patchset."
p320
sg4
F0.8026464596433878
sa(dp321
g2
S'Hmm. Less vomit-inducing, except for this part:...Ugh, that just *screams* for a helper function.'
p322
sg4
F0.802683443638446
sa(dp323
g2
S'... And it really is all stupidly and badly done. I bet we can make that code faster without really changing the end result at all, just changing the algorithm. ... In fact, looking at select_idle_sibling(), I just want to puke. The thing is crazy. ... instead it does totally f*cking insane things ... The code is shit. Just fix the shit, instead of trying to come up with some totally different model. Ok? ...'
p324
sg4
F0.8038211248696474
sa(dp325
g2
S"Duh. That is just broken. ... That's just stupid."
p326
sg4
F0.8049355034388979
sa(dp327
g2
S'No. I\'m not pulling 3000 lines of broken defconfig crap. That defconfig update is pure and utter shit, and changes from the minimal kind of defconfig to the old-style "everything and the kitchen sink" crap. We started doing that defconfig minimization for a reason. See commit 8b1bb90701f9 for example. We\'re not going back to the bad old days, and I\'m not pulling thousands of lines or pure garbage noise just because you were too lazy to do it right.'
p328
sg4
F0.806512451074602
sa(dp329
g2
S'No it\'s not. Thomas, stop this crap already. Look at the f*cking code carefully instead of just dismissing cases. ... So, Christ, Thomas, you have now *twice* dismissed a real concern with totally bogus "that can never happen" by explaining some totally unrelated *simple* case rather than the much more complex case. So please. Really. Truly look at the code and thing about it, or shut the f*ck up. No more of this shit where you glance at the code, find some simple case, and say "that can\'t happen", and dismiss the bug-report.'
p330
sg4
F0.8082092019063171
sa(dp331
g2
S"This patch is insane. This is pure garbage. Anybody who thinks this: ... is a good idea should be shot. Don't do it. ...That's just f*cking insane. Stop this kind of idiocy. The code looks bad, and the logic is pure shit too."
p332
sg4
F0.8089388655340428
sa(dp333
g2
S'Ok, so I\'m looking at the code generation and your compiler is pure and utter *shit*. ... Lookie here, your compiler does some absolutely insane things with the spilling, including spilling a *constant*. For chrissake, that compiler shouldn\'t have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten. We\'re talking "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby" level retardation levels here: ... Because it damn well is some seriously crazy shit. However, that constant spilling part just counts as "too stupid to live". ... ... This is your compiler creating completely broken code.'
p334
sg4
F0.8093202085297696
sa(dp335