Re: [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpuops

From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tue Sep 24 2013 - 11:45:42 EST

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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at