Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:03:17 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20 |
| |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes: > > Thomas, > > Thomas> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these > Thomas> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot > Thomas> deal with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by > Thomas> emitting a warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome. > > My mistake. I was made aware of it earlier today and I'm working on a
Why didn't you send a revert to Linus right away?
Darn. I sent a pull request earlier today, which I immediately revoked, when I noticed that it had a late reported testing failure. It did not hit Linus public tree fortunately. I could have said "I'm working on a fix" as well. But that's the wrong thing to do.
So for your thing, it was already in Linus tree. Though if you get aware of it and it's revertable w/o creating lots of mess, then it's the right thing to revert it immediately. Do not drag out regressions longer than necessary, please.
> Surprised we didn't see any reports of this in -next. It's been > in there for a while.
next does unfortunately get not the full exposure and it's neither a replacement for common sense nor an excuse for not testing the common case (i.e. non enterprise hardware with default distro configs)
Thanks,
tglx
| |