Split (1)

train · 311 rows

text stringlengths 12 1.62k
...it's a pointless and wrong example....So your argument is shit. Why do you continue to argue it?...It's really not that complicated....Really, why is so hard to understand?
This is why I don't like it when I see Torvald talk about "proving" things. It's bullshit.
But your (and the current C standards) attempt to define this with some kind of syntactic dependency carrying chain will _inevitably_ get this wrong, and/or be too horribly complex to actually be useful. Seriously, don't do it. ... So just give it up. It's a fundamentally broken model. It's wrong, but even more importantly, it's not even useful, ...I really really really think you need to do this at a higher conceptual level, get away from all these idiotic "these operations maintain the chain" crap.
But that's BS. You didn't actually listen to the main issue. Paul, why do you insist on this carries-a-dependency crap? It's broken. ... The "carries a dependency" model is broken. Get over it.... I gave an alternate model (the "restrict"), and you didn't seem to understand the really fundamental difference. ... So please stop arguing against that. Whenever you argue against that simple fact, you are arguing against sane compilers....
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 ;)
Oww, oww, oww. DAMMIT. ...So I'm pissed off. This patch was clearly never tested anywhere. Why was it sent to me?...Grr. Consider yourself cursed at. Saatana.
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.
Ugh. This is way late in the release, and the patch makes me go: "This is completely insane", which doesn't really help...This is just pure bullshit....So the above locking change is at least terminally stupid, and at most a sign of something much much worse.... there is no way in hell I will apply this obviously crap patch this late in the game. Because this patch is just inexcusable crap, and it should not have been sent to me in this state. ...
Ugh. I pulled it, but things like this makes me want to dig my eyes out with a spoon:...
So I think that adding "visible" to asmlinkage is actively wrong and misguided. And the compiler even told you so, but somebody then chose to ignore the compiler telling them that they did stupid things. Don't do crap like this.
Ugh. I absolutely detest this patch. If we're going to leave the TLB dirty, then dammit, leave it dirty. Don't play some half-way games....
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!
That's a cop-out. ... See? It's stupid. It's wrong. It's bad.
So I absolutely hate how this was done.... I'm pulling it this time, but quite frankly, next time I see this kind of ugly AND TOTALLY POINTLESS layering violation, I will just drop the stupid pull request. ... In other words, this was NOT OK. This was stupid and wrong, and violated all sanity. ... What the hell was going on here?
And by "their" you mean Kay Sievers. Key, I'm fcking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the code you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the problems you cause. Kay - one more time: you caused the problem, you need to fix it. None of this "I can do whatever I want, others have to clean up after me" crap.
It does become a problem when you have a system service developer who thinks the universe revolves around him, and nobody else matters, and people sending him bug-reports are annoyances that should be ignored rather than acknowledged and fixed. At that point, it's a problem. It looks like Greg has stepped in as a baby-sitter for Kay, and things are going to be fixed. And I'd really like to avoid adding hacky code to the kernel because of Kay's continued bad behavior, so I hope this works. But it's really sad that things like this get elevated to this kind of situation, and I personally find it annoying that it's always the same f*cking primadonna involved.
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?
NO I AM NOT! Dammit, this feature is f*cking brain-damaged. ...But even apart from the Xen case, it was just a confusing hell. Like Yoda said: "Either they are the same or they are not. There is no 'try'". So pick one solution. Don't try to pick the mixed-up half-way case that is a disaster and makes no sense.
Ugh, so I pulled this, but I'm going to unpull it, because I dislike your new "i_mmap_lastmap" field.... makes me just gouge my eyes out. It's not only uglifying generic code, it's _stupid_ even when it's used....But the fact that it adds code to the generic file just adds insult to injury and makes me go "no, I don't want to pull this".
No it didn't. There was nothing accidental about it, and it doesn't even change it the way you claim.... Your explanation makes no sense for _another_ reason.... ... So tell us more about those actual problems, because your patch and explanation is clearly wrong. ... So this whole thing makes no sense what-so-ever.
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.
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.
It appears Intel is fixing their braindamage
Well, that's one way of reading that callchain. I think it's the wrong way of reading it, though. Almost dishonestly so.
Hmm. Less vomit-inducing, except for this part:...Ugh, that just screams for a helper function.
I did look at it, but the thing is horrible. I started on this something like ten times, and always ended up running away screaming.
.. 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.
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.
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....
Why the heck are you making up ew and stupid event types? Now you make the generic VM code do stupid things like this:... which makes no sense at all. The names are some horrible abortion too ("RANDW"? That sounds like "random write" to me, not "read-and-write", which is commonly shortened RW or perhaps RDWR. Same foes for RONLY/WONLY - what kind of crazy names are those? But more importantly, afaik none of that is needed. Instead, tell us why you need particular flags, and don't make up crazy names like this. ...., so all those badly named states you've made up seem to be totally pointless. They add no actual information, but they do add crazy code like the above to generic code that doesn't even WANT any of this crap. ... So things like this need to be tightened up and made sane before any chance of merging it.
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
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.
If this comes from some man-page, then the man-page is just full of sh*t, and is being crazy. ...So NAK NAK NAK. This is insane and completely wrong. And the bugzilla is crazy too. Why would anybody think that readahead() is the same as read()?
I took it, but I think both your explanation and the patch itself is actually crap. It may fix the issue, but it's seriously confused. ... And the code is crap, because it uses ULONG_MAX etc in ways that simply make no f*cking sense. And why does it care about sizeof? ... So I think this fixes a problem, but it's all ugly as hell. ...It's not just that the code is unnecessarily complex, it's WRONG. ... It's just stupid and misleading, and it just so happens to work by random luck ...
.. and apparently this whole paragraph is completely bogus. It does break things, and for normal people. That's what the bug report is all about. So don't waffle about it.... Wrong. We don't break existing setups, and your attitude needs fixing. ... The problem needs to be solved some other way, and developers need to f*cking stop with the "we can break peoples setups" mentality./ Hans, seriously. You have the wrong mental model. Fix it.
Christoph, stop arguing. Trust me, Paul knows memory ordering. You clearly do not.
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.
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.
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.
Please don't. That thing is too ugly to exist. It also looks completely and utterly buggy. There's no way I'm taking it. If switch-names is suddenly conditional, what the f*ck happens to the name hash which is unconditionally done with a swap() right afterwards. There's no way that patch is correct
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.
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)
That's just complete bullshit. The fact is, release() is not synchronous. End of story. ... Anybody who confuses the two is wrong. ... So please kill this "FOPEN_SYNC_RELEASE" thing with fire. It's crazy, it's wrong, it's stupid. It must die.
This is disgusting. Many (most?) __gup_fast() users just want a single page, and the stupid overhead of the multi-page version is already unnecessary. This just makes things much worse.
Yeah, this is pure crap. It doesn't even compile. ... Why the f*ck do you send me totally untested crap?
So adding the loop looks like just voodoo programming, not actually fixing anything.
Actually, the real fix would be to not be stupid, and just make the code do something like ...
You're doing completelt faulty math, and you haven't thought it through. ...That's insane. It's crap. All just to try to avoid one page copy. Don't do it. ...Really, you need to rethink your whole "zerocopy" model. It's broken. Nobody sane cares. You've bought into a model that Sun already showed doesn't work. ...
No they aren't. You think they are, and then you find one case, and ignore all the others. ... So no, your patch doesn't change the fundamental issue in any way, shape, or form. I asked you to stop emailing me with these broken "let's fix one special case, because I can't be bothered to understand the big picture" patches. This was another one of those hacky sh*t patches that doesn't actually change the deeper issue. Stop it. Seriously. This idiotic thread has been going on for too long.
No there isn't. Your "action by the holder" argument is pure and utter garbage, for a very simple and core reason: the filesystem doesn't know or care. ... ...Face it, your patch is broken. And it's fundamentally broken, which is why I'm so tired of your stupid ad-hoc hacks that cannot possibly work.
Yeah. Bloated, over-engineered, and stupid. ... Despite making the code slower, bigger, and buggier. I guess I'll fetch the git tree and see if they document this braindamage.. ...Oh well. What a cock-up. The code is insane in other ways too. ... I can't take it any more. That code is crazy.
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.
Improve the debugger, don't make kernel code worse because your out-of-tree debugging infrastructure is too broken to live.
Ok, so things are somewhat calm, and I'm trying to take time off to see what's going on. And I'm not happy. ... Please don't call this thing a "generic page table". ... In other words, looking at this, I just go "this is re-implementing existing models, and uses naming that is actively misleading". I think it's actively horrible, in other words. ... I also find it absolutely disgusting how you use USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS for this, which seems to make absolutely zero sense. ... I'm also looking at the "locking". It's insane. It's wrong, and doesn't have any serialization. ... Rik, the fact that you acked this just makes all your other ack's be suspect. Did you do it just because it was from Red Hat, or do you do it because you like seeing Acked-by's with your name? ...
WHAT? NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY MAKES ANY SENSE.
Umm. We had oopses showing it. Several times. ... .. and you and Andi repeatedly refused to make the code more robust when I asked. Which is why I don't work with Andi or you directly any more, ... Every time there were just excuses. Like now. ... I'm done with your crazy unwinder games. ... But this patch I NAK'ed because the code is not readable, and the infrastructure is not bearable. Live with it.
Andy, you need to lay off the drugs.
You have also marked 3.18-rc1 bad twice, along with the network merge, and the tty merge. That's just odd. But it doesn't make the bisect wrong, it just means that you fat-fingered thing and marked the same thing bad a couple of times. Nothing to worry about, unless it's a sign of early Parkinsons...
For a vmalloc() address, you'd have to actually walk the page tables. Which is a f*cking horrible idea. Don't do it. ... Where the hell does this crop up, and who does this insane thing anyway? It's wrong.
Ugh. That's horrid. Do we need to even support O_DIRECT in that case? ... In general, it's really a horrible thing to use, and tends to be a big red sign that "somebody misdesigned this badly"
Gaah. Why do you do this to me? ... That's the wrong format, but it's also the wrong branch name. ... EXCEPT THAT'S WRONG TOO! ... Please fix your script/workflow. I'm not pulling this mess.
.. why did that commit ever even get far enough to get to me? ... Either way, it shows a rather distinct lack of actual testing, wouldn't you say? I really see no excuse for crap like this. ...Linus "not happy" Torvalds
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.
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.
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 fcking stupid".... Because people who think that "we'll just redesign everything" are actually fcking morons. Really. There's a real reason the kernel has the "no regression" policy. And that reason is that I'm not a moron.
To quote the standard response for people who ignore regressions: "SHUT THE FUCK UP"...I don't understand how people can't get this simple thing. You have two choices: - acknowledge and fix regressions - get the hell out of kernel development....Christ people. Why does this even have to be discussed any more?...But you guys need to shape up. We don't break things....
...End of discussion. Seriously. Your whinging about "support costs" is just crying over the fact that you have users. Deal with it. ...And dammit, I really never ever want to hear arguments against fixing regressions ever again. It really is the #1 rule for the kernel. There is no excuse for that NAK. There is only "sorry".
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.
Yes, I actually would mind, unless you have a damn good reason for it....I really don't see why you should lie in your /proc/cpuinfo. ...Just give the real information. Don't lie. Quite frankly, the only actual real reason I've heard from you for not having the real bogomips there is "waste of time". And this whole thread has been nothing but waste of time. But it has been you wasting time, and that original commit. ... So quite frankly, my patience for you arguing "wasting time" is pretty damn low. I think your arguments are crap, I still think your NAK was way out of line, and I think it's completely insane to lie about bogomips. It's disasteful, it's dishonest, and there's no reason for it. ... Seriously, what kind of insane argument can you really marshal for lying to users?... Christ, this whole thing is annoying. I really find it offensive how you want to basically lie to users. Stop this idiocy. Really. There is no excuse.
Fuck no. ... You are just making shit up. Bad shit. Get off the drugs, because it's not the good kind.... Cry me a river. ... Bullshit. This whole thread is now marked as "muted" for me, because I can't take the BS any more. You make no sense. ...You're crazy. Go away. Or don't. I won't be seeing your emails anyway, so why would I care?
Ugh. This is too ugly, it needs to die. ... Because this is unreadable.
Why do I say "total crap"? ...it's really wrong. ... The comment is also crap. ... So doing this in "__may_sleep()" is just bogus and horrible horrible crap. It turns the "harmless ugliness" into a real harmful bug. ... PeterZ, please don't make "debugging" patches like this. Ever again. Because this was just stupid, and it took me too long to realize that despite the warning being shut up, the debug patch was still actively doing bad bad things.
Ugh. This patch is too ugly to live. ... I really detest debug code (or compiler warnings) that encourage people to write code that is worse than the code that causes the debug code or warning to trigger. It's fundamentally wrong when those "fixes" actually make the code less readable and maintainable in the long run.
Because code like this is just crap: ... really. It's just crazy. It makes no sense. It's all just avoiding the warning, it's not making the code any better.
This makes no sense. You're trying to fix what you perceive as a problem in the page fault handling in some totally different place. ... Don't try to make horrible code in insane places that have nothing to do with the fundamental problem. Why did you pick this particular get/put user anyway? There are tons others that we don't test, why did you happen pick these and then make it have that horrible and senseless error handling? Because at NO point was it obvious that that patch had anything at all to do with "out of memory". Not in the code, not in your commit messages, nowhere. ...
Ugh. Your diffstat is crap, because you don't show the inexact renames that are very abundant in the nouveau driver.
No. Really. ... No. The whole concept of "drop the lock in the middle" is BROKEN. It's seriously crap. It's not just a bug, it's a really fundamentally wrong thing to do. ... No. That's still wrong. You can have two people holding a write-lock. Seriously. That's shit
No. I pulled, and immediately unpulled again. This is complete shit, and the compiler even tells you so: ... I'm not taking "cleanups" like this. And I certainly don't appreciate being sent completely bogus shit pull requests at the end of the merge cycle.
... There is absolutely no sane reason to use this crap, as far as I can tell. The new "fs_inode_once()" thing is just stupid. ... Dammit, if we add wrapper and "helper" functions, they should help, not confuse. This thing is just badly named, and there is no actual real explanation for why it exists in the first place, nor for when to use one or the other. There is just an endless series of patches with pointless churn.... Explain it, or that crap gets undone. I'm annoyed, because shit like this that comes in at the end of the merge window when everybody and their dog sends me random crap on the Friday afternoon before the merge window closes is just annoying as hell. ... Today has been a huge waste of time for me, and reading through this was just the last drop.
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.
So my patch was obviously wrong, and I should feel bad for suggesting it. I'm a moron, and my expectations that "pte_modify()" would just take the accessed bit from the vm_page_prot field was stupid and wrong.
You make no sense. The commits you list were all on top of plain 4.0-rc2.
NOOO!... Get rid of the fcking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends. ... Hell fcking no. The "something like so" is huge and utter crap, because the barrier is on the wrong side.
Completely immaterial. Seriously. ... Answer: you don't. ... It's wrong. It's fundamentally invalid crap. ... NO WAY IN HELL do we add generic support for doing shit. Really. If p9 does crazy crap, that is not an excuse to extend the crazy crap to more code.
Side note, you'll obviously also need to fix the actual bogus 'gp_init_delay' use in kernel/rcu/tree.c. That code is horrible.
Why not just revert that commit. It looks like garbage. ... The reason I think it's garbage is... code like the above is just crap to begin with.. So I don't think this code is "fixable". It really smells like a fundamental mistake to begin with. Just revert it, chalk it up as "ok, that was a stupid idea", and move on...
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.
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?
Hell no. Stop with the random BUG_ON() additions. ... Dammit, there's no reason to add a BUG_ON() here in the first place, and the reason of "but but it's an unused error return": is f*cking retarded. Stop this idiocy. We don't write crap code just to satisfy some random coding standard or shut up a compiler error.... NO NO NO. ... Really. I'm getting very tired indeed of people adding BUG_ON's like that. Stop it.
This is not at all equivalent, and it looks stupid.
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.
No. I refuse to touch this crap.... You really expect me to take crap like that? Hell no. If your stuff isn't self-sufficient, then it's not something I want to ever pull. If the top of the tree you ask me to pull doesn't work (and quite frankly, every commit leading to it) then it's bad and unusable. ...But it's one thing to have an unintentional bug, and another thing to do it on _purpose_.
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. ...
Ugh. I hate that. It looks bad, but it's also pointless. ...Compilers that warn for the good kind of safe range tests should be taken out and shot. ... so I just detest that buggy piece of crap for so many reasons. It's also sad that a one-liner commit that claims to "fix" something was this broken to begin with. Grr. Honza, not good.
What the hell have you done with the commit messages? The first line is completely corrupted for those reverts, and as a result your own shortlog looks like crap and is completely misleading. ... presumably due to some horribly broken automation crap of yours that adds the "[media]" prefix or something. How did you not notice this when you sent the shortlog? Or even earlier? This is some serious sht, since it basically means that your log messages are very misleading, since the one-liner actually implies exactly the reverse of what the commit does. I unpulled this, because I think misleading commit messages is a serious problem, and basically half* (and patch-wise, the bulk) of the commits in this queue are completely broken.
... 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. ...
No. You think WRONG. ... YOUR CODE IS WRONG, AND REALITY SHOWS THAT YOUR DEFAULT IS CRAP. Really. ... BS. The only reason for your interface was that it was simpler to use. You broke that. And you broke that for no good reason. .... So your "default" is not actually safe. It breaks real cases, and doesn't add any security. It's broken.
Your arguments all are entirely irrelevant to the fundamental issue. And then when I suggest a sane interface that doesn't have this problem, your arguments are crap - again. ... Bullshit. You clearly didn't even read my proposal. ... Anyway, I'm not discussing this. You are clearly unwilling to just admit that your patch-series was broken, ... As such, why bother arguing?
No. Stop this theoretical idiocy. We've tried it. I objected before people tried it, and it turns out that it was a horrible idea.... So this "people should check for allocation failures" is bullshit. It's a computer science myth. ... So no. ...Get over it. I refuse to go through that circus again. It's stupid.
Really. Stop this idiocy. We have gone through this before. It's a disaster.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.