From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758294AbYDJXbW (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:31:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753477AbYDJXbE (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:31:04 -0400 Received: from delay-av.club-internet.fr ([194.158.96.170]:46054 "EHLO delay-av.club-internet.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756143AbYDJXa7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:30:59 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1220 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:30:58 EDT Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors From: vincent-perrier To: David Miller Cc: jesper.juhl@gmail.com, tilman@imap.cc, lkml@rtr.ca, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080410.154651.101700010.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080409.182228.193699767.davem@davemloft.net> <47FE3020.1070502@imap.cc> <9a8748490804101509l5d043ff8w565dc44dfeaf0072@mail.gmail.com> <20080410.154651.101700010.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:10:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1207869029.19683.13.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2-1pclos2007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I am an end user, I do not know precisely what bisecting means, but I have spent some time on bug 8895, I suppose I have totally bisseced it, but it seems that it has been lost. It is clearly a bug and I am still patching every kernel to avoid the fib6 crash, obviously I am the only one to get it. It is true that kernel developper's time is more important than user's one, but staying modest and respectfull of the brainless bisesting users is a must! Our time is just as yours, not extensible. Anyway, keep on the good kernel work, we all need it. On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 15:46 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: "Jesper Juhl" > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:09:11 +0200 > > > You can't expect users to know how to debug a problem or even bisect > > it. > > [ The person you are replying to was being sarcastic, BTW. ] > > That's not the case we're talking about in this specific instance. In > this particular case the user is more than capable of bisecting, he > just isn't willing to invest the time. > > And I'm supposed to be willing to invest the time to analyze the TCP > dumps or whatever to diagnose the problem? And I guess I should do > this for every single networking bug report or issue? Who is > going to clone me and the rest of the core networking developers > so that this is actually tenable? > > That's ludicrious, I don't have a reproducer, this person does. And > if they bisect, we'll know _exactly_ what change introduced the > problem. Then I can use my brain to figure out the correct way > to resolve the problem. > > Bisecting is a mindless activity that saves developers tons of time. > > What people don't get is that this is a situation where the "end node > principle" applies. When you have limited resources (here: > developers) you don't push the bulk of the burdon upon them. Instead > you push things out to the resource you have a lot of, the end nodes > (here: users), so that the situation actually scales. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > � >