On 1/20/16, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > Jeff, > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Jeff Merkey wrote: >> Thomas, so far the only thing I've gotten from you are whining >> diatribes about email ettiquette and today is the FIRST time you have >> responded to me with any arguments that have technical merit and >> actually address the problem. That's what I am here for, not >> anything else. As Linus has said repeatedly, being nice doesn't seem >> to get results. Being direct and honest does. >> >> I am here to make MDB run as well as I can make it on Linux and to >> help make it run as well as possible on c86_64 and ia32. That's my >> only objective here. That being said, I am still wanting to get >> this fixed. >> >> Will you help me? > > If you accept, that you are not setting the tone of the conversation as you > think it fits you. > > I started to give you technical answers way before you started your > completely > unjustified ranting. And I have done so before. > > I'm neither going to cope with random emails in my private inbox nor with > top-posting and non-trimmed replies simply because that wastes my time. And > certainly I'm not going to cope with your assumption that not being nice is > the right way to go. > > It's your decision, not mine. > > Thanks, > > tglx >
Oh good grief -- I guess we all have our days me included. I am sorry to have offended you. Turn the page, next chapter. I am already past this. BTW, I am preparing my report. Results same as before with CONFIG_DEBUG_TIMEKEEPING, Hard Lockup again. I am running a trace right now to see just how big RAX was this time with the nanoseconds count. Jeff
