Re: Please consider reverting7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

[Ingo Molnar]

* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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.

	Ingo
--
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/