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

Hi Marcel,

* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> who said 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all'. The fix for
> this issue is 4 days old and was already on the way to Linus. And I
> remember the first response was that this got fixed already and that the
> patch is going to Linus.

Well, what formed my opinion was the first response to Jeff Chua's
bisection result - see it above, i quoted it in its entirety.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-03 18:07    [W:0.081 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site