Re: Please consider reverting7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Nov 03 2009 - 11:30:25 EST

* 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.
> 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."


"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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at