From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13465 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 01:38:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13455 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 01:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 01:38:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12586; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:28:56 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020425.182856.23002000.davem@redhat.com> To: msnyder@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Improve Sparc epilogue analysis From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3CC86F55.CA45E27B@redhat.com> References: <3CC74F72.6B0F8C8B@redhat.com> <20020424.180531.51276912.davem@redhat.com> <3CC86F55.CA45E27B@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01060.txt.bz2 From: Michael Snyder Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:04:21 -0700 > I know you're going to explode at me, Why would you say that? Have I exploded at you up till now? Yes you did. You did it when I commented on the errors in your reviewing of patches last time. You said that you wouldn't have reviewed any of my patches that day had you read the email in question before doing so. That, to me, is "blowing up". > but you seem to make a lot of errors reviewing my changes. If so, I would like to know about it. Please detail one of my errors for the group. The first patch of mine you reviewed you asked "is this a sparc specific issue", when if you had really read the patch in it's entirety, for the change in question, I added a long winded comment that said that this was a sparc specific issue. That was an error in patch review, and it showed to me that you had only skimmed over my patch quickly instead of really having a good look at it. Your change to sparc_init_extra_frame_info changes its logic and its black-box behavior. You have said nothing about why you made this change. It's not my job to guess why you did it, it's my job to reject your change until you explain it. You said I did not make any reference at all to the change in my changelog entries, that is how you phrased it and that is what I took issue with. If you had told me to discuss the change "in more detail" that would have been different. It's also not my job to take shit from you. And it's not my job to take it from you either.