I know you're shocked, simply shocked. I am.

Working off a post to alt.os.linux.caldera by Jonathan Sizz, I looked into TSCOG's statement that (SCO'S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER GRANTING IN PART IBM'S MOTION TO LIMIT SCO'S CLAIMS, p.43-44):

"Another example, Item No. 46 (Exh. 24), is a February 26, 2003 email
[page] 43
exchange between IBM developers Martin Bligh, James Cleverdon and a public Linux mailing list in which Bligh and Cleverdon describe a "bug fix" Bligh made to Linux and how it was based on the method from Dynix/ptx. 12"

TSCOG then offers in its footnote 12:

"12 "James Cleverdon ... he was involved in this with PTX, and gave me some pointers to hair-restorer during the Linux timeframe... the four writes to ESR is still enshrined in Dynix/PTX's APIC error handler, and will remain a hidden testimony to this bug for as long as IBM maintains PTX support." (Attached as Exh. 25)"

Note the use of ellipses ( ... ), and that TSCOG writes the statement within one pair of double quotes.

Ellipses conote a passage of text from which some portions are removed, usually for brevity, but not with a loss of context.

Here, the use of ellipses clearly suggests that the phrase:

"James Cleverdon ... he was involved in this with PTX, and gave me some pointers to hair-restorer during the Linux timeframe... the four writes to ESR is still enshrined in Dynix/PTX's APIC error handler, and will remain a hidden testimony to this bug for as long as IBM maintains PTX support."

is all that of Bligh's, and is one continuous statement. Also note, again, that TSCOG puts all of this inside one set of double quotes, strengthening the implication that this is directly quoted from Bligh's single, continuous statement.

Nothing of the sort is true.

When I located the relevant posts in the Linux Kernel Mail List archives, Bligh's at http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/139 and Cleverdon's at http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/272 I could immediately see that TSCOG's phrasing is the combination of Bligh's post on Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:52:40, and an entirely separate post by Cleverdon at Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:32:09, some eight hours later.

Bligh's statement is limited to:

"The latter, IIRC, 2 writes worked most of the time, but never really fixed it. Using any kind of logical analysis never seemed to work on that chip ... brute force, trial and error, and 3 months of tearing my hair out was the only thing that suceeded in the end. A time I have no wish to revisit ;-)

cc'ed James Cleverdon ... he was involved in this with PTX, and gave me some pointers to hair-restorer during the Linux timeframe.

M.

While it it Cleverdon, in his entirely separate post eight hours later, who says:

"You want _that_ story, eh? 8^)

<snip>

Maybe this weirdness was fixed in P2s or later CPUs. Maybe. Intel never did say anything about it to us. Regardless, the four writes to ESR is still enshrined in Dynix/PTX's APIC error handler, and will remain a hidden testimony to this bug for as long as IBM maintains PTX support."

In fact, in Bligh's email he clearly describes how he fixed the problem by "...brute force, trial and error, and 3 months of tearing my hair out was the only thing that suceeded in the end..."

Hardly what someone would go through if they'd merely been given a "method" from someone who'd worked on Dynix/ptx.

But of course, that doesn't stop TSCOG from lying, does it?

i_s_g

< EOM >