Dave Airlie's Code is Nasty, According to Linus Torvalds (He Can Say This Openly Because Airlie Isn't Female or Ethnic Minority)
"Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
--Linus Torvalds
Well, nasty code is just nasty code. Why use euphemisms? "Show me the code," they say... and it can be objectively nasty. If you keep pushing nasty code, you may get a verbal warning. That's life.
THE Linux Foundation, a GPL infringers' club according to Bruce Perens (a new article says over 70% of the members are GPL infringers), is more interested in censorship than in code. It's about population control or social control, not freedom. Look who dominates the Board there (Microsoft).
The CoC is not about protecting people but about corporations like Microsoft protecting their interests from "opinionated" community members, including unpaid volunteers and project founders.
Airlie's (or his colleagues') code can be blasted. When Torvalds says the same to a female they start calling him "sexist" and demand repercussions (later SFC hires those same people and pays them 6-figure salaries to be Cancel Officers).
Don't lose hope! If your code sucks, you may still be able to find a fallback career as a serial defamer, going after good developers like Ted and Linus. You're nowhere as accomplished as they are, but if you keep publicly smearing them, you may eventually look important. You can even be a biologist with no background in Computer Science. Just remember to always play the victim and blame the people who started the project you allegedly contribute to (Ted and Linus did so much more than some Microsoft pushers, adding back doors and such).
To use a little sarcasm...
Torvalds should just learn to accept any buggy code, even Microsoft back doors from Matthew J Garrett, and then add politely, "thank you for the bugs, please send me more buggy code and back doors..."
Joking aside, Torvalds is self-censoring these days. Some of his bosses, full-time staff of Microsoft, can send him to therapists again (like he's ill or something for striving to maintain code quality and berating repeat offenders).
Airlie's code got this message:
The full text:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 11:49, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me know if there are any issues,
Your testing is seriously lacking.
This doesn't even build. The reason seems to be that commit b49e894c3fd8 ("drm/i915: Replace custom intel runtime_pm tracker with ref_tracker library") changed the 'intel_wakeref_t' type from a 'depot_stack_handle_t' to 'unsigned long', and as a result did this:
- drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "async_put_wakeref %u\n", + drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "async_put_wakeref %lu\n", power_domains->async_put_wakeref);
meanwhile, the Xe driver has this:
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_wakeref.h: typedef bool intel_wakeref_t;
which has never been valid, but now the build fails with
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c: In function ‘print_async_put_domains_state’: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c:408:29: error: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 5 has type ‘int’ [-Werror=format=]
because the drm header files have this disgusting thing where a *header* file includes a *C* file:
In file included from ./include/drm/drm_mm.h:51, from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo_types.h:11, from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.h:11, from ./drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/gem/i915_gem_object.h:11, from ./drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h:15, from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c:8:
nasty.
I made it build by fixing that broken Xe compat header file, but this is definitely *NOT* how things should have worked. How did this ever get to me without any kind of build testing?
And why the %^!@$% does a header file include a C file? That's wrong regardless of this bug.
Linus
Torvalds responded a little more politely to a male developer from China [1, 2]. Because quality control matters.
Stop demanding that project leaders blindly accept back doors and bugs, especially from notorious GPL violators (working for the NSA) and people who call your project "a cancer". █
"Their documents display a clear intent to monopolize, to prevent any competition from springing up. And they have used a variety of restrictive practices to prevent that kind of competition."
--Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee (on Microsoft)