Re: Please consider reverting7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

[Marcel Holtmann]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
>  ...
>  |
>  | 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.

Regards

Marcel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/