Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)

[Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>]

On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> 
> > > If this is not a repgession, than I don't know what is. And if it is 
> > > a regression, it should be fixed at least in the 2.6.24.y series, do 
> > > you agree?
> > 
> > No. Playing with kconfig SELECT is really _nothing_ for a -stable 
> > series. I am _not_ going to be responsible for any breakages. [...]
> 
> well, i've reviewed this thread and it's pretty apparent to any outside 
> observer that you as a maintainer are ignoring Alexey Zaytsev's pretty 
> reasonable request for a fix.
> 
> Alexey had a problem, he analyzed it, he found a fix which he tested, 
> and he even has offered to test anything you send his way:
> 
> || I have provided a patch that I believe is trivial, that I have tested 
> || with all possible config option combinations I thought were possible, 
> || and that fixes the regression. If you have a reason to believe it is 
> || wrong, please say it, I won't be offended. If there is a problem with 
> || the patch, I'll gladly fix and resend it.
> 
> that's about the most friendly tester attitude that is imaginable.
> 
> but what were you able to make out of that positive attitude? The only 
> things i've seen you send his way were insults and general handwaving 
> about how his patch breaks stuff (without providing a _shred_ of 
> evidence).

blah:

> I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in 
> the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've 
> ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions, you are frequently 
> insulting our testers and now you even have the gall to NAK a patch to 
> _your own buggy driver code_ without providing an alternative fix. 
> Kudos.

So I am forced to sign-off random patches people send to me?
I explained why I do not. If you do not like that, please do sign it off.
If you do think the patch is correct, please _do_ sign it off Ingo.

This problem will fix itself by switching to b43 and dropping bcm43xx.
_That_ is my way to fix the bug.
I don't understand all the SELECT implications, so I'm not going
to introduce more of them. Because if the next regression appears from
I SELECT that I signed off
goto blah;

-- 
Greetings Michael.