From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754470AbYEZJgu (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 05:36:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753230AbYEZJgk (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 05:36:40 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36671 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753072AbYEZJgk (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 05:36:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:36:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Chris Wright , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Top 10 bugs/warnings for the week of March 23rd, 2008 Message-ID: <20080526093609.GF13529@elte.hu> References: <4836EE8C.1010200@linux.intel.com> <20080524001509.GG4018@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <4837A2A3.2030204@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4837A2A3.2030204@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.1 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0107] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> At any rate, they have a bug in their proprietary module (news at >> 11). >> >> So, I don't think this should make the top ten. Do you have a way to >> sort tainted vs non-tainted, and only produce the top ten for >> untainted? > > yes absolutely; this is a question I'll have for the customers of the > data... do people want to see "only-tainted" in these top 10s? Right > now I mark them as such but leave them in. It's trivial for me to just > leave them out instead (the info is there, just a matter of not > counting) i think they should be included, but perhaps abbreviated [into 1-2 lines] so that they do not hold us up. We must not whitewash our bug statistics by intentionally excluding the harm that bin-only modules do to our users - but we can make them less visually intrusive, so that we can work on fixing the bugs we can fix. Perhaps make sure it's top 10 of _our_ bugs, with the bin-only data mixed in as well (in a visually unintrusive way) to make the picture complete. I.e. list 20 bugs if 10 of them are bin-only modules. Ingo