From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755411Ab1FFQyx (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:54:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56804 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751889Ab1FFQyw (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:54:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:54:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: pageexec@freemail.hu Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jan Beulich , richard -rw- weinberger , Mikael Pettersson , Brian Gerst , Louis Rilling , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule Message-ID: <20110606165424.GB2391@elte.hu> References: <4DECEBD6.10522.12F3E13C@pageexec.freemail.hu> <20110606151546.GH30348@elte.hu> <4DECF25F.27062.130D695E@pageexec.freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DECF25F.27062.130D695E@pageexec.freemail.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > On 6 Jun 2011 at 17:15, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > > > > > my bandwidth/quota for replying to idiocy is limited (and is > > > close to exhaustion for today ;), be patient, i'll reply to > > > you as well. > > > > You might want to save the insults to after we are done with the > > discussion. > > haha, Ingo, seriously, you wrote the above 20 minutes after this > one? > > > Unfortunately Andi has been spouting nonsense in this thread > > without replying to mails that challenge his points, such as: > > tell you what Ingo, heed your own advice. better, you can even keep > it to yourself. i do whatever i want, including what you reserve > for seemingly yourself only. The difference is that: - You wrote an insult without waiting for the discussion to come to a conclusion. I think you are wrong and i am willing to argue it. - Andi first tried to injected fear, uncertainty and doubt into the discussion a week ago, then ignored 3 mails from 3 separate people and thus when he repeated his nonsense today (while still ignoring the feedback he got) i sure can call his opinion 'nonsense'. Thanks, Ingo