Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 14:47:32 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PCI DMA lockups in 3.2 (3.3 maybe?) Message-ID: <199912042247.OAA05083@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Dec 1999 13:52:58 PST." <199912042152.NAA57575@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :Actually, you may recall that when you first brought this up this time > :around, I (and others) _did_ try to find out what you were actually > :unhappy about. > : > :Spectators will note that you haven't actually given us anything useful > :to work with; no PR numbers, no code fragments, in fact nothing > :whatsoever of any substance. > : > :Thus, I feel quite comfortable in reassuring other developers that your > :hysterical complaints shouldn't be taken as a cause for alarm. If and > :when you have something that actually looks like it might be enough > :evidence for us to work with, we'll take you seriously. > > It wasn't hysterical until other people (not the original poster) made it > that way. Frankly, Mike, your initial response to Dennis's initial > posting left a hellofalot to be desired. Simply stating, in a snide way, > that there was not nearly enough information is not helpful if you do not > describe the type of information you think would be useful. Presumably > the original poster (Dennis) did not know exactly what kind of information > was needed (that he could also supply, since he is (and said he was) not > a kernel hacker). Dennis made this quite clear in his initial posting > and got nothing but hell from you. Since you're going to attack me in public over this, I'm going to state my position on this once and then let it rest. - You're welcome to project what you like into you personal interpretation of my response to Dennis. It's unreasonable to expect that what you think I meant is what was actually meant (this is basic communications theory). You also lack most of the context for this interaction, some of which I attempted to convey in the message you've quoted above. - Dennis is a principal in a company which manufactures communications peripherals and writes driver software for them. It's not unreasonable to expect him to have some sort of idea, or access to an in-house idea, about how to go about diagnosing a problem like this. It's also not unreasonable to expect that, being involved in a development environment, that he would have some experience in reporting problems in a fashion that would allow action to be taken to resolve them. - We have been dealing with Dennis for many years. He has persisted in his defective communications style despite many well-meaning attempts to encourage him to improve. At this point in time, he has worn out his welcome with many of us and if anything it's a credit to our stamina that we still even listen to him anymore. - Irregardless of your initial presumptions concerning Dennis' ability, the fact remains that he failed to follow through on the encouragement to provide more information, and thus (again) we were unable to actually provide him with any more assistance. Now he comes back a few weeks later to complain again, still not providing any more information. Which side is falling down in this relationship? -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912042247.OAA05083>