From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89F8C433F5 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8834611C6 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232424AbhJRWxy (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:53:54 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:44681 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229554AbhJRWxy (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:53:54 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31A15C003B; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:51:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=E14Y4t zyBruQUiC1HR33o5vcNQGg8Hf7awcXypd+Eq8=; b=YDoYTJCwSnrLEzstS7Ah6U hgnyw7Kl7JGjGR3t9Kdrp8AhJ8XhcWwVbAU5clMAFrRizzhDf7kHB/ffRp2XwIDS H5004gZp6Lv8RQlZR3dB0OWYD20XrRXJTYfTAL/+TgVOj9l2rrMAXOOktkpZBjgV dlVLLXvYffrBwKJ4z1JY/YrHt+KoICHY+wbzepXITbAlwf1jIswB/YHPQmVfrXi0 Xk2HgZTisQFMbXi5A9ARUgHqrsF9aO6bqQ/EmTNXNlOudISXPifdwZI6y9mQy20l t2ooEp0Af+L0gOdfrvn4nfSRsU+bfG1YyZVtWE0L8lhZ/aLfQ9WfkRuoxkHhOBEw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvuddgudegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffujgfkfhggtgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhephfhinhhnucfv hhgrihhnuceofhhthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepffduhfegfedvieetudfgleeugeehkeekfeevfffhieevteelvdfhtdevffet uedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepfh hthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:51:40 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: Jens Axboe cc: Michael Schmitz , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] block - ataflop.c: fix breakage introduced at blk-mq refactoring In-Reply-To: <8d60483d-3cd6-5df7-8db6-7a8b9ce462e3@kernel.dk> Message-ID: <97323ce2-4f5c-3af2-83ac-686edf672aea@linux-m68k.org> References: <20211018222157.12238-1-schmitzmic@gmail.com> <8d60483d-3cd6-5df7-8db6-7a8b9ce462e3@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Jens Axboe wrote: > Was going to ask if this driver was used by anyone, since it's taken 3 > years for the breakage to be spotted... A lack of bug reports never implied a lack of users (or potential users). That falacy is really getting tiresome. It is much more difficult to report regressions than it is to use a workaround (i.e. boot a known good kernel). And I have plenty of sympathy for end-users who may assume that the people and corporations who create the breakage will take responsibility for fixing it. Do maintainers really expect innocent end users to report and bisect regressions, and also test a series of potential fixes until one of them is finally found to both work and pass code review?