Re: [Bug 10864] [regression][bisected] ~90,000 wakeups as of 2.6.26-rc3

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, Németh Márton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Németh Márton <nm127@freemail.hu> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I already mentioned at the bug report that 2.6.26-rc6 this is fixed.
> >>
> >> Maybe tell your robot to first check the latest activities in the bug 
> >> report since the last -rc release. What I want also to tell your robot 
> >> that it should mention what actions should be taken in case the bug 
> >> should be still listed or when the bug can be closed.
> > 
> > i think the current regression tracking methods that Rafael uses work 
> > very well and i'd like to thank Rafael for those efforts - to me as a 
> > subsystem maintainer it is a _very_ useful thing.

Thanks Ingo!

> > In this case there was no real harm from the "this bug is already fixed" 
> > condition - just an extra email. Real harm would only come from missed 
> > regressions or from incorrectly closed regressions - but those are not 
> > happening.
> > 
> > note that there is no "robot" involved in changing the state of bugs - 
> > the real important work here is done by Rafael and checking whether a 
> > bug is still relevant is an inevitably manual work. The mails and 
> > reports are auto-generated but crawling discussions and determining the 
> > status of a regression is very hard to automate.
> 
> Sorry, I thought a robot missed my comments in the bug tracking system for
> the second time:
> 
> 1.
> Comment was on 2008-06-06 13:27:16 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c3 )
> The mail was coming: 7 Jun 2008 22:42:57 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/193 )
> 
> 2.
> Comment was on 2008-06-13 23:19:53 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c4 )
> The mail was coming: 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/160 )
> 
> Nevertheless the bug #10864 can be closed I think.

Closed now.

Thanks,
Rafael