ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 10:40:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> 
> > Should I attach my entire .config file in the future?  It's large enough 
> > that
> > I try to trim it to avoid bloating people's inboxes.
> 
> I'm often trying to reproduce compile errors, and it's always a pain in 
> the ass when I have to construct a complete .config based on such a 
> fragment instead of simply using the complete .config of the reporter.
> 
> And people for whom a few kB would matter wouldn't subscribe to 
> linux-kernel...
> 
> > Yes, that's right.  It is compiled as a module.  So this just needs
> > a tweaked config rule, right?
> 
> It would be a solution to let HOTPLUG_PCI_ACPI depend on
> (ACPI_DOCK || ACPI_DOCK=n), or the #if in 
> include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h could be changed to
> #if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK) || (defined(CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
> 
> Which one suits better the intention is better is a question Kristen has 
> to answer.


Two weeks ago, we had:
- a bug report
- a detailed description how to possibly fix this issue

What we did NOT have was:
- any reaction by the patch author or any maintainer
  (although with the exception of Linus, the recipients of the problem
   description were exactly the same as the ones in this email)

A few days later, the patch that includes this bug was included in 
Linus' tree.

Two weeks later, the bug is still present in both latest -mm and Linus' 
tree.

Linus, please do a
  git-revert a5e1b94008f2a96abf4a0c0371a55a56b320c13e

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> Two weeks ago, we had:
> - a bug report
> - a detailed description how to possibly fix this issue
> 
> What we did NOT have was:
> - any reaction by the patch author or any maintainer
>   (although with the exception of Linus, the recipients of the problem
>    description were exactly the same as the ones in this email)
> 
> A few days later, the patch that includes this bug was included in 
> Linus' tree.
> 
> Two weeks later, the bug is still present in both latest -mm and Linus' 
> tree.
> 
> Linus, please do a
>   git-revert a5e1b94008f2a96abf4a0c0371a55a56b320c13e

Fair enough. Reverted.

I think I'll stop accepting any ACPI patches at all that add new features, 
as long as there doesn't seem to be anybody who reacts to bug-reports. We 
don't need ACPI features.

We need somebody who answers when people like Andrew asks about patches to 
support things like memory hotplug (which was also a problem over the last 
weeks). Here's a quote from Andrew from a week or so ago: "repeat seven 
times over three months with zero response.".

It's not worth it to accept new stuff if we know it's not going to get any 
attention ever afterwards.

			Linus

RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Brown, Len]

>> Two weeks ago, we had:
>> - a bug report
>> - a detailed description how to possibly fix this issue
>> 
>> What we did NOT have was:
>> - any reaction by the patch author or any maintainer
>>   (although with the exception of Linus, the recipients of 
>the problem
>>    description were exactly the same as the ones in this email)

Yes, I'm on this list.
No, I don't see all patches or comments unless they get sent directly
to: or cc: to me.

>> A few days later, the patch that includes this bug was included in 
>> Linus' tree.
>> 
>> Two weeks later, the bug is still present in both latest -mm 
>and Linus' 
>> tree.
>> 
>> Linus, please do a
>>   git-revert a5e1b94008f2a96abf4a0c0371a55a56b320c13e
>
>Fair enough. Reverted.

I disagree with this decision, and would like to know what
is necessary to reverse it.

>I think I'll stop accepting any ACPI patches at all that add 
>new features, as long as there doesn't seem to be anybody who reacts to

>bug-reports. We  don't need ACPI features.

If it is a requirement that I see every patch sent to the list
and not directly to me during weekends in July, then I agree
with your decision -- because I can't give you that level of service.
But surely:

1. You can e-mail me directly when you are asking me to do something.
2. deleting the driver is a somewhat Draconian response to what appears
 to be a simple Kconfig issue in rc1.

>We need somebody who answers when people like Andrew asks 
>about patches to support things like memory hotplug (which was also a
problem 
>over the last weeks). Here's a quote from Andrew from a week or so ago:

>"repeat seven times over three months with zero response.".

The memhotplug patches first hit the list March 21st -- the 1st day of
the 2.6.17 integration window.

I would have queued them for 2.6.18-rc1, but they depended
on other patches in -mm that Andrew did not send me.

Yes, I Should have mentioned that to Andrew, and acked
the patches so he could have sorted that out.

However, the only way they could have got into 2.6.18-rc1 any
earlier would be if the 2.6.17 cycle were shorter.

>It's not worth it to accept new stuff if we know it's not 
>going to get any attention ever afterwards.

If you address me directly when you are asking me to do something,
that would really help me help you.

thanks,
-Len

RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Brown, Len]

 
>If you address me directly when you are asking me to do something,
>that would really help me help you.

oops, I see you did this -- looks like I've got some snags in my mail
sorter.

-Len

RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Brown, Len wrote:
> >
> >Fair enough. Reverted.
> 
> I disagree with this decision, and would like to know what
> is necessary to reverse it.

Mistakes happen. Fair enough. They happen all the time. This time around, 
for the 2.6.18-rc1 thing, I had heard more than the usual "nobody even 
reacted", as Andrew had held up two patch-series of his because of that 
issue..

So that makes me like it even less than usual when I'm told that a problem 
with something I merged was apparently known BEFORE IT WAS MERGED.

So Adrian's report on its own wouldn't have caused a revert. 

> If you address me directly when you are asking me to do something,
> that would really help me help you.

As far as I can tell, you were cc'd on all of these things, along with 
the linux-acpi mailing list.

			Linus

RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Brown, Len]

>> >Fair enough. Reverted.
>> 
>> I disagree with this decision, and would like to know what
>> is necessary to reverse it.
>
>Mistakes happen. Fair enough. They happen all the time. This 
>time around, for the 2.6.18-rc1 thing, I had heard more than
>the usual "nobody even reacted", as Andrew had held up two
>patch-series of his because of that issue..

Dependencies happen too, and that was the case with the memhotplug
patches.  Memhotplug, PCI-hotplug, docking -- these things all
have dependencies between multiple sub-systems, and we don't
really have a good process for making things flow smoothly.
Andrew has set himself up to be the clearing house, and he is
so successful that I think that sometimes we tend to
over-use him for that purpose.

>So that makes me like it even less than usual when I'm told 
>that a problem with something I merged was apparently known
>BEFORE IT WAS MERGED.
>
>So Adrian's report on its own wouldn't have caused a revert. 
>
>> If you address me directly when you are asking me to do something,
>> that would really help me help you.
>
>As far as I can tell, you were cc'd on all of these things, along with 
>the linux-acpi mailing list.

Yes, you are right, I was cc'd.  My inbox knew about this issue
and I hadn't noticed it.  It was my mistake to assume a few days later
that the latest driver needed a patch.

So I ask you.  If I fix the Kconfig issue today, will you accept
a push that restores this driver to 2.6.18?

thanks,
-Len

RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Brown, Len wrote:
> 
> So I ask you.  If I fix the Kconfig issue today, will you accept
> a push that restores this driver to 2.6.18?

Sure.

		Linus

Re: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

[Nigel Cunningham]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

Hi.

On Monday 10 July 2006 08:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Brown, Len wrote:
> > So I ask you.  If I fix the Kconfig issue today, will you accept
> > a push that restores this driver to 2.6.18?
>
> Sure.

Great! Sorry Linus from me too - I've been assigned to watch this for Redhat 
and completely missed the feedback as well. We have an open bug that we're 
hoping it will fix, and would like to see it in vanilla.

Regards,

Nigel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]