Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Actually you haven't proven that either. You have proven that you responded on July 1st.
    Believe what you want, if you want to believe that I read it sooner (without any evidence to that effect) well then I guess there is a high probability that you would also believe in the tooth fairy.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    There is something very wrong with that. Unwillingness to accept that an issue exists that doesn't effect you doesn't exist is a piss poor way of trouble shooting. It is neither analytical, open minded, or beneficial to any party.
    Hardly. Until it is proven, it is only a theory. Had Phoronix implied that it was a theory, my opinion would have been different. The articles (all of them) claimed that it existed.

    Had we blindly believed it, we may as well have believed in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.


    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I know what I said, that is why I corrected to what I was referring to.
    Sorry, you can't correct the context of your statement after the fact because you have already said it.

    That's the same logic you tried to apply to me, if the shoe fits, wear it.

    (fifth request)

    One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?

    Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    It is proof that I said it, which was what I aimed to prove. The timing of the post is irrelevant, however I have also proven that I read the article July 1st which is when I read the comments and saw your personal attack.
    Actually you haven't proven that either. You have proven that you responded on July 1st.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    I was unwilling to accept that it existed until it was proven to exist based on my applied testing that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it didn't impact the portable computers that I tested it on. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory or in practice.
    There is something very wrong with that. Unwillingness to accept that an issue exists because it doesn't effect you is a piss poor way of trouble shooting. It is neither analytical, open minded, or beneficial to any party.


    That isn't what you said. What you said was:

    Actually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.

    My very first comment in relation to this "regression" was in April, it isn't too much to ask for to ask for the bug to be identified a few months later.
    I know what I said, that is why I corrected to what I was referring to.
    Last edited by deanjo; 05 July 2011, 12:03 PM. Reason: double wordage

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    You are the one that offered it as "proof". All it proves it that you posted it post article.
    It is proof that I said it, which was what I aimed to prove. The timing of the post is irrelevant, however I have also proven that I read the article July 1st which is when I read the comments and saw your personal attack.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I can comprehend fine. I can comprehend that you were speculating through out the whole time and later tried to offer an absolute answer that "it does not exist" and despite being pointed out that because you could not replicate it and had your own theory you were unwilling to accept that it did exist until after the article was published. BTW it is not as small of a subset as you think it is. Does it effect 100% of systems, absolutely not but I would wager that it effects a minimum of 5% of the systems out there if not more.
    I was unwilling to accept that it existed until it was proven to exist based on my applied testing that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it didn't impact the portable computers that I tested it on. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory or in practice.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    By the way, claiming that it impacts 5% is wild speculation in itself.
    No no, you have to consider all of my comments, not just what you choose to use.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I was actually referring to your very first post on this article/thread
    That isn't what you said. What you said was:

    Actually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.

    My very first comment in relation to this "regression" was in April, it isn't too much to ask for to ask for the bug to be identified a few months later.

    (fourth request)

    One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?

    Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    It doesn't prove anything. Prove that I read the article before commenting. I don't read Phoronix every day, and hadn't even noticed this article until July 1st.
    You are the one that offered it as "proof". All it proves it that you posted it post article.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    Comprehension isn't your strong suit. I implied that the context was provided by the threads.

    I did, because until it was proven to exist, it didn't exist. Now, I am saying that it only impacts a very small subset of devices which is true .. per the commit.
    I can comprehend fine. I can comprehend that you were speculating through out the whole time and later tried to offer an absolute answer that "it does not exist" and despite being pointed out that because you could not replicate it and had your own theory you were unwilling to accept that it did exist until after the article was published. BTW it is not as small of a subset as you think it is. Does it effect 100% of systems, absolutely not but I would wager that it effects a minimum of 5% of the systems out there if not more.

    That's not my very first post. My very first post was this one:

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ht=#post201069

    Where I said, and I quote:

    I don't know that I would call this a kernel regression, as the kernel doesn't dynamically change parameters based on applied power state. That's what you need something like Jupiter for..

    In that thread I also show two distinctly different platforms and how they don't show any symptom of the bug.


    In my very first post I said I wouldn't call it a regression, I neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the bug.

    If you follow the initial conversation fully, you'll have the context that sets up the rest of my comments on the matter across all of the related threads (which really says there are too many articles, and not enough action which was and remains my chief complaint). You'll also find several comments where I helped people check for kernel options needed test to determine if they have this "bug".
    I was actually referring to your very first post on this article/thread

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...sktop-Hardware

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    (third request)

    One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?

    Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    7 days ago is after the article was published. The article was written on the 26th of June. So you have proven that hindsight is indeed 20-20.
    It doesn't prove anything. Prove that I read the article before commenting. I don't read Phoronix every day, and hadn't even noticed this article until July 1st.

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...790#post216790

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X