The tinydrm code seems like absolute pure shit that has never seen a compiler.
I'm upset, because I expect better quality control. In fact, I expect some qualitty control, and this piece-of-shit driver has clearly seen none at all.
And those patches were apparently committed yesterday.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
I get tons and tons of lines of warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c: In function ‘mipi_dbi_typec1_command’:
drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c:65:20: warning: field widthwith nasty chains of nested defines, but then I also get actual compile failures
drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/core/tinydrm-helpers.c:198:26: error:(with similar stuff for tinydrm_disable_backlight()).
It looks like it might compile if CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE was enabled rather than being a module.
Doing this:
-#ifdef CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE)
How the hell did this get to the point where crap like this is even sent to me? Nobody tested anything*?
AND WHY THE HELL WAS THIS UTTER SHITE SENT TO ME IF IT WAS COMMITTED YESTERDAY?
> Derision and general point
> Insult
> Derision and minor point
> Actual, concrete, well reasoned point
> Derision
He usually has very good points, but people tend to focus on the derision and insults. That means people aren't seeing the points he's making. That's not entirely their fault. Communication is a two way street, and he's making his own communication actively worse.
His infamous C++ rant (http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus) is the one I always go back to. It makes perfect sense when you realize he's talking about coding for the kernel or otherwise coding for something that can only really be understood as a series of bytes. It's complete nonsense if you're talking about, say, business software, where all that abstraction makes the software comprehensible. He also does things in that rant like essentially champion reinventing the wheel, though, too.
People always defend him by saying:
* "Passive aggressive corporate culture is toxic!"
* "It works so it's not toxic/who cares if it's toxic!"
* "They don't have to contribute if they don't want to!"
And I just don't buy any of those arguments as a defense for bad behavior.
And where exactly is there an insult, though?
You seem to confuse he calling CODE shit with he calling PEOPLE shit.
People very well can see the points even though there is strong language. There is a small amount of people that ONLY look at the strong language and make a point out of it.
> And I just don't buy any of those arguments as a defense for bad behavior.
You define bad behavior as using strong language (swear words basically) and then accept nothing as a defense. But no-one really cares about what you buy.
"I'm upset, because I expect better quality control. In fact, I expect some qualitty [sic.] control, and this piece-of-shit driver has clearly seen none at all."
Then he goes to describe the details to prove his point.
He is _upset_. That's a feeling, you know. Then he calls the patch shit. So there is a guy who gets pissed off and calls code shit once in a while. Maybe he has Tourette's, we don't know. Why do you actually care? Why are you so sensitive exactly?
Oh yeah, and I think he has been wrong in my opinion on many topics. I don't think he's god. But LET HIM BE HUMAN!
Yes? No?
In this case, I think using "of" instead of "to" would be clearer:
"There is nowadays some constructive criticism of Linus's outbursts"
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:44:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [snip]
Don't shit on (new) contributors like this. Noralf has done good work (go look), Kconfig is an impossible combinatorial maze, and I'd be rather annoyed if you managed to drive away Noralf (and other contributors) with your mail.
I know that you need to rage every once in a while, but at least only send those mails to Dave (and me) in private. On dri-devel here, this isn't accepted.