[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091103162955.GA4836@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:29:55 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johannes@...solutions.net,
linville@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please consider reverting
7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344
* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> > > no questions that it needs fixed, I agree with you. However just blindly
> > > reverting something, because it fixes it for one or two people, might
> > > have side effects that causes more problems than the revert would
> > > actually fix.
> >
> > Stop whining. Really.
> >
> > Everybody understands that it should be fixed. That's not the question.
> >
> > But it should be fixed _quickly_. In this case, I have a bisection report
> > FROM TWO DAYS AGO. And I'm still kicking myself for not just reverting
> > that piece-of-shit commit then, because I spent the time to look at the
> > oops and the commit, and could tell that it was crap.
> >
> > Instead, I _did_ wait for the subsystem maintainer to get around to it. As
> > a result of waiting, I've now wasted time for a lot of other people.
>
> I do have a patch in my inbox from Johannes from 4 days ago that fixes
> this issue.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=125697124819563&w=2
>
> So what is the take away from this now? Do you wanna have Johannes
> step over John and Dave and send such a patch directly to you?
The problem as i see it is the kind of answer Johannes gave when the bug
was bisected to by Jeff Chua two days ago:
Subject: wpa2 hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1. Revert
7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixed it.
[ <1257151742.3555.165.camel@...annes.local> ]
...
|
| On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:18 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
| > wpa2 (wpa_supplicant) hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1.
|
| Explain?
|
| > Reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixes it.
|
| Certainly not a good idea, will break when your AP denies association.
|
| johannes
Unhelpful, defensive, in denial.
Plus that you tried to berate Dmitry in this particular thread about the
revert was pretty bad form too IMO.
_Anyone_ who went through the unnecessary, avoidable cost of having to
do a bisection of a 3 days old commit merged at around -rc5 time is in
his full rights to ask for a revert, straight from Linus if he thinks
so. No ifs and when about it.
So IMO you are showing the wrong kind of attitude for a post-rc5
regression, by a _wide_ margin. The right kind of attitude would be:
"Oops, my bad - thanks. I've queued up a revert."
or:
"Oops, my bad - thanks. Does the attached patch fix it?
If not we'll revert it."
Furthermore, your 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all'
argument is just a forewarning that you learned nothing and such
avoidable incidents could repeat in the future.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists