lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Please consider reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.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@johannes.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-03 17:33    [W:2.441 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site