text stringlengths 12 1.62k |
|---|
The reading comprehension here is abysmal. ...And none of that matters for my argument AT ALL. |
So please, just remove that idiotic "if (!event->attr.exclude_guest)" test. It's wrong. It cannot possibly do the right thing. It is totally misdesigned, exactly because you don't even know beforehand if somebody uses virtualization or not. |
Christ, why can't people learn? |
Ugh. This patch is just too ugly. Conditional locking like this is just too disgusting for words. ... I'm not applying disgusting hacks like this. ... No "if (write) up_write() else up_read()" crap. |
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... |
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 ... |
Mauro, SHUT THE FUCK UP! It's a bug alright - in the kernel. How long have you been a maintainer? And you *still* haven't learnt the first rule of kernel maintenance? ... Shut up, Mauro. And I don't _ever_ want to hear that kind of obvious garbage and idiocy from a kernel maintainer again. Seriously. ...The fact that y... |
Yes, I'm upset. Very upset. ... So your question "why would pulseaudio care" is totally *irrelevant*, senseless, and has nothing to do with anything.1/2/2013 10:14:00 |
Christ people. I already reported that it DOES NOT EVEN COMPILE. ... Alan apparently doesn't care about the patch he wrote to even bother fixing that, and the only person who does seem to care enough to carry two fixes around (Andrew) apparently doesn't feel that he's comfortable forwarding it to me ... I'm not picking... |
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. |
No way. ... In fact, just to prove how bad it is, YOU SCREWED IT UP YOURSELF. ... But the "hacky workaround" absolutely needs to be *automatic*. Because the "driver writers need to get this subtle untestable thing right" is *not* acceptable. That's the patch that Ming Lei did, and I refuse to have that kind of fragile ... |
No. You guys need to realize that I'm not talking crap like this this late. This is not major bugfixes. I already looked away once just because it's a new filesystem, but enough is enough. This is way way WAY too late to start sendign "enhancements". Seriously. |
No. Your pull requests are just illogical. I have yet to see a single reason why it should be merged. ... That's total bullshit. ... Again, total *bullshit*. ... ... Ingo, it's not us being silly, it is *you*. ... So here, let me state it very very clearly: I will not be merging kvmtool. ... In other words, I don't see... |
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, |
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 ... |
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 th... |
Ingo, stop this idiotic nonsense. You seem to think that "kvmtool is useful for kernel" is somehow relevant. IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. |
Christ. This is so ugly that it's almost a work of art. |
Did anybody actually look at the code generation of this? Adding an external function call is *horrible*, ... Guys, the biggest cost of a function call is not the "call" instruction, it's all the crap around it ... And the excuse is "so that we can add stuff to the wait loop". What the f*ck? ... and which is something ... |
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 do... |
Christ, we should just try to get rid of the personality bits entirely, they are completely insane |
Quite frankly, this is f*cking moronic. |
Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest. ... If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's *your* issue. |
Quite frankly, I doubt that anybody will ever care, ... Plus quite frankly, signing random kernel vendor modules (indirectly) with a MS key is f*cking stupid to begin with. In other words, I really don't see why we should bend over backwards, when there really is no reason to. It's adding stupid code to the kernel only... |
Ugh. The placement of that #ifndef is just horrible, please don't do that. |
Your arguments only make sense if you accept those insane assumptions to begin with. And I don't. |
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. |
Rafael, please don't *ever* write that crap again. ... Seriously. Why do I even have to mention this? Why do I have to explain this to somebody pretty much *every* f*cking merge window? This is not a new rule. ... So you should be well acquainted with the rule, and I'm surprised to hear that kind of utter garbage from ... |
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 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 ... |
... 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 secu... |
This is the kind of totally bogus crap that no sane person should ever spout. Stop it. |
I would love to blame gcc, but no, I think the code is crap. ... And gcc would be completely correct. That test is moronic. |
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. |
Yeah, that would be a no. I finally got to look at the new architectures and be ready to pull them, and you just made sure I won't pull this. This is exactly the kind of crap I don't want to see in *any* pull requests, ... Why the f*ck are you doing back-merges? There is no excuse for even a single one. And here you ha... |
No, guys. That cannot work. It's a completely moronic idea. |
Yeah, I'm a f*cking moron. |
Bullshit. This is a regression, and it needs to be fixed. The "device needs power" crap is just that - crap. Nobody cares. ... Claiming that we need to know the power regulator for an accelerometer is total utter idiocy and crap. ... The notion that you have to have regulator information in order to use some random dev... |
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. |
Because you screwed up that pull request, and I argue that you screwed up exactly *because* it's ambiguous and confusing. |
This is all *COMPLETELY* wrong. ... Fix ARC, don't try to blame generic code. You should have asked yourself why only ARC saw this bug, when the code apparently works fine for everybody else! |
That's absolutely insane. It's insane for two reasons: - it's not SUFFICIENT. ... - it's POINTLESS and WRONG. ... |
I'm a moron. |
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 com... |
Why does this have the crappy cputime scaling overflow code, ... WTF happened here? I and others spent efforts so that we wouldn't need this kind of crap. |
Ugh. Sorry, but this patch just looks stupid. |
F*ck yes it does. It means that NOBODY EVEN TEST-COMPILED THE TREE THAT GOT SENT TO ME. WTF? If that's not "irresponsible and lame", I don't know what the hell is. |
And you are making that excuse exactly *why*? ... Stop making excuses for bad behavior. Just admit that you guys screwed up rather than trying to soldier on. ... That's a f*cking disgrace. ... Stop making excuses for it. Really. It just makes you look even worse. ... |
This has so much wrong that I don't know where to start. |
Not pulled, because your hamster smells of eldeberries. This is not just bugfixes. In fact, as far as I can tell, this *introduces* bugs, ... I'm f*cking tired of people having problems understanding "we're past rc5". If it's not something you would call stable material, you shouldn't send it to me. |
That patch is really ugly. And it doesn't make much sense. ... So the patch seems to make things just worse. |
What the F*CK is wrong with people? |
David, what the heck are you doing? ... Seriously. Those commits now have TOTALLY MISLEADING summary messages. ... |
THIS IS SOME HORRIBLY BROKEN CRAP. ... Dammit, this has happened before, and it was broken then, and it is broken now. If they do, they are *F*CKING*BROKEN*. ... You need to start being more careful. ... There is no excuse for this. That commit is shit. ... And that totally crap commit is even marked for stable. I hate... |
Grr. I hate it when people do this. Your merge message sucks. |
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 ... |
What the F*CK, guys? This piece-of-shit commit is marked for stable, but you clearly never even test-compiled it, did you? ...The declaration for gate_desc is very very different for 32-bit and 64-bit x86 for whatever braindamaged reasons. Seriously, WTF? I made the mistake of doing multiple merges back-to-back with th... |
Ok. So your commit message and explanation was pure and utter tripe, |
Ugh. I dislike this RCU'ism. It's bad code. It doesn't just look ugly and complex, it's also not even clever. It is possible that the compiler can fix up this horrible stuff and turn it into the nice clever stuff, but I dunno. |
Please don't do these ugly and pointless preprocessor macro expanders that hide what the actual operation is. And this is really ugly. Again it's also then hidden behind the ugly macro. ... |
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'r... |
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. |
What drugs are you on? Your example is moronic, and against all _documented_ uses of chroot. |
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? |
The whole "it's more convenient to use sleeping locks" argument is PURE AND UTTER SHIT when it comes to really core code. ... Seriously. Your argument is bad, but more importantly, it is *dangerously* bad. It's crap that results in bad code: and the bad code is almost impossible to fix up later... |
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? |
Not acceptable. ... Plase stop sending me untested crap that doesn't even compile cleanly! |
Stop this idiotic "blame gcc bug" crap. Which part of my explanation for why it was *NOT* a compiler bug did you not understand? ... Stop the f*cking around already! The whole "we expect ww_ctx to be null" thing shows that YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TEST ACTUALLY IS! ... Christ, can you really not understa... |
This looks totally invalid....Your patch is horribly wrong. |
You need to also explain *why* people should apply it, and stop the f*cking idiotic arguing every time somebody comments about your patches.Stop this idiotic "blame gcc bug" crap. Which part of my explanation for why it was *NOT* a compiler bug did you not understand? ... Stop the f*cking around already! The whole "we... |
My point is that I have sixteen pointless messages in my mbox, half of which are due to just your argumentative nature. |
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. |
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 sh... |
I think that code is bad, and you should feel bad. |
Grr. I've pulled it, but looking at that history, it's just pure and utter f*cking garbage. |
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... |
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. |
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. |
This looks completely broken to me. ... Wtf? Am I missing something? |
Yeah, it's a hack, and it's wrong, and we should figure out how to do it right. |
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. |
The fact that it doesn't even compile makes me doubt your statement that it has been in linux-next. ... I fixed it up properly in the merge, but please try to figure out how the hell this passed through the cracks. |
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... |
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. |
It's misleading crap. Really. Just do a quick grep for that bit, and you see just *how* confused people are about it:...think about it. Just *THINK* about how broken that code is. The whole thing is a disaster. _PAGE_NUMA must die. It's shit. |
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*. |
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. |
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. |
Dammit, this is pure shit, and after having to deal with yet another pointless merge conflict due to stupid "cleanups" in Makefiles, IT DOES NOT EVEN COMPILE. And no, that's not due to a merge error of mine. It was that way in your tree. Hulk angry. Hulk smash. I fixed it up in the merge, but I shouldn't need to. This ... |
I don't think that works. That completely breaks randomize_stack_top(). So I'm not going to pull the parisc tree, this needs to be resolved sanely. In fact, I think that change to fs/exec.c is just completely broken:... and that "+1" just doesn't make sense, and fundamentally breaks STACK_RND_MASK. It also seems to be ... |
Oh, please, that's a British-level understatement. It's like calling WWII "a small bother". That's too ugly to live. |
And that audit code really is aushit. I think I found a bug in it while just scanning it: |
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. |
I absolutely *detest* this patch....because the particular use in question is pure and utter garbage.... And btw, that horrid crap called "kmap_to_page()" needs to die too. When is it *ever* valid to use a kmap'ed page for IO? Here's a clue: never. I notice that we have a similar abortion in "get_kernel_page[s]()", whi... |
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 a... |
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 |
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. |
Quite frankly, I think it's stupid, and the "documentation" is not a benefit, it's just wrong.... I don't understand why you even argue this. Seriously, Paul, you seem to *want* to think that "broken shit" is acceptable, and that we should then add magic markers to say "now you need to *not* be broken shit".... Serious... |
No, please don't use this idiotic example. It is wrong....Anybody who argues anything else is wrong, or confused, or confusing. |
Please, Debabrata, humor me, and just try the patch. And try reading the source code. Because your statement is BS. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.