Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:26 +0000 | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops |
| |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > No he did not. He mentioned something about debug_smp_processor_id() at > > the end of a post after talking about something else. Given your > > comments now I see what was meant. That was not really obvious in the > > first place. > > Holy cow, this is what PeterZ wrote to you a week ago: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > > +extern void this_cpu_preempt_check(void); > > +#else > > +static inline void this_cpu_preempt_check(void) { } > > +#endif > > How about re-using debug_smp_processor_id() instead? > > Firstly, that sentence is as damn obvious as it gets.
No its not. This is a side comment and did not explain in detail what was intended. There was another issue mentioned there. You did that in your dysfunctional communication.
> Pointing out your repeated lack of cooperation in this matter is a > statement of facts, not an 'insulting behavior'. Your wasting of other > people's time is simply not acceptable. > > That I called you out on it might be embarrassing to you but there's a > really easy solution to that: implement reviewer and maintainer requests > and don't send sloppy patches repeatedly.
What is embarrasing here is your behavior. Usually I do not respond to this kind of crap because its obvious that it is just that and it needs to stand there for all to see not requiring a response.
And the patches were repeatedly send to you as well. You could have said something earlier too when you realized that I did not note Peter's comment.
| |