Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:12:02 +1000

Rogier Wolff writes:
> Richard Gooch wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. I've said again and
> > again that I don't demend that others analyse my results. I've posted
> > them for the interest of people on the list. Take it or leave it.
> > If someone wants to analyse them, that's fine.
> >
> > Just don't get abusive or aggressive. And don't claim that my test is
> > broken just because it disagrees with your favourite benchmark.
>
> Richard, I and many others were reading your message as implying a
> question to start analysing your benchmark. I suggest that you
> should be a bit more careful about how you formulate such things.

"Many others"? Or just you and Larry? Maybe you've missed the earlier
parts of this thread. Larry came out all guns blazing and said my test
was broken. My position is that he should not be agressive and
impolite and call my test broken simply because *he* didn't measure
such variance with his test.
If you call someones test broken without analysing their code, that's
inappropriate behaviour. If you don't want to analyse their code but
want to point out that you don't measure that variance, all you need
to do is say so. Politely.

Regards,

Richard....

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/