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
    Go ahead and re-read those entire threads. NOTHING is out of context.
    Comprehension isn't your strong suit. I implied that the context was provided by the threads.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    First of all you did not say "only impacts a very small subset of systems." You said "it doesn't exist". I pointed out to you back then that saying "it doesn't exits" because of you not experiencing it wasn't valid. So who fired the first shot?
    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 gave Michael the benefit of the doubt for months (which you can find me quoted as saying).

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    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.
    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.


    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Non proven? In the very same post you say it is proven.
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    Meaningless, because I said it just the same. You claimed that I didn't and I have proven to have said it 7 days ago, deal with it.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    The context is provided by the original threads.
    Go ahead and re-read those entire threads. NOTHING is out of context.

    Yes, It has been proven now, and you'll find that I'm not disagreeing with that. It however only impacts a very small subset of systems.
    First of all you did not say "only impacts a very small subset of systems." You said "it doesn't exist". I pointed out to you back then that saying "it doesn't exits" because of you not experiencing it wasn't valid. So who fired the first shot?

    Originally Posted by deanjo
    Again that really doesn't prove anything. Until you can 100% prove and 100% replicate each of those reports you cannot say with certainty that they don't exist.


    The reports are useless, if you can't or are unwilling to see that then I would question anything else that you have to say in relation to the issue.
    Followed up with

    Originally Posted by deanjo
    You seem to miss an extremely simple concept here. Being not able to replicate is not proof that it does not exist. It only proves that you cannot replicate it.


    I haven't missed any concept. To imply that I have shows that you either don't understand my comments, or that you are too arrogant to admit that I might be right.

    Either way, it's your problem.
    I asked several times for the evidence to prove that it was real, you can't discount that, nor can you prove that I hadn't asked for it. Since April.

    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.


    Oh I see. I provide sufficient evidence to show that this "major" regression is at most minor (see link above to the original post), and continue to argue against the non-proven bug is trolling? You have trolled every single one of my comments here, it seems that is your specialty.
    Non proven? In the very same post you say it is proven.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Hindsight is 20-20. Comment posted after the article was published.
    (second 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
    Hindsight is 20-20. Comment posted after the article was published.
    Meaningless, because I said it just the same. You claimed that I didn't and I have proven to have said it 7 days ago, deal with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Taking out of context? The context is provided by direct posts that you posted.
    The context is provided by the original threads.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    [/B]He first noticed the issue in late April, they were not "baseless" and that has been proven.
    Yes, It has been proven now, and you'll find that I'm not disagreeing with that. It however only impacts a very small subset of systems.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    We also know about Micheal?s attempts at finding a device that would allow him to track it down easier and in a timely matter. We also know that he received it mid June. Had everybody listened to you there would have been no testing done because you kept claiming it "did not exist"
    I asked several times for the evidence to prove that it was real, you can't discount that, nor can you prove that I hadn't asked for it. Since April.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Lol, you know it was you that was trolling. I can go on and quote quite a few attacks made by you to pretty much anybody that disagreed with you. If quoting your own posts is trolling then so be it.
    Oh I see. I provide sufficient evidence to show that this "major" regression is at most minor (see link above to the original post), and continue to argue against the non-proven bug is trolling? You have trolled every single one of my comments here, it seems that is your specialty.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    ?]fuduntu 2 points 7 days ago*
    Hindsight is 20-20. Comment posted after the article was published.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by fewt View Post
    or actually spend time finding the problem
    there is NO evidence that it's real.

    To the rest of my comments you have quoted out of context, they were correct in their proper context, as the bug didn't exist until it was proven to exist.
    Taking out of context? The context is provided by direct posts that you posted.

    For example..

    What you fail to realize though is that the burdon of proof is not on me. It is not my responsibility to disprove that the bug exists, it is on Phoronix who initiated and continued these same baseless claims for months.


    He first noticed the issue in late April, they were not "baseless" and that has been proven.

    I don't think that it is too much to ask for Phoronix to actually prove their theory after all this time by showing us the commit since the claim was made in the first article that it would be found "quickly".
    We also know about Micheal?s attempts at finding a device that would allow him to track it down easier and in a timely matter. We also know that he received it mid June. Had everybody listened to you there would have been no testing done because you kept claiming it "did not exist"

    I see that the only value you bring to this forum is in the form of personally attacking anyone that disagrees with Michael. A troll as moderator, nice.
    Lol, you know it was you that was trolling. I can go on and quote quite a few attacks made by you to pretty much anybody that disagreed with you. If quoting your own posts is trolling then so be it.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlbertP
    replied
    If your computers are all from the same manufacturer & type, it's possible that no one reports a problem - they may have a proper BIOS. And it's also dependent on the age of the computers. Older ones may not use PCI-E that extensively. Netbooks often use Intel graphics, which may be connected directly to the PCI bus insteatd of via a PCI-E port.
    You cannot deny that there are some users with problems. Many people can run Linux 2.6.38 fine, and desktop users often don't notice that there's a problem, but there ARE users affected.

    Please stop arguing about who speaks the truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • fewt
    replied
    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:

Working...
X