Re: Please consider reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

Hi Marcel,

* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> > > > > no questions that it needs fixed, I agree with you. However just blindly
> > > > > reverting something, because it fixes it for one or two people, might
> > > > > have side effects that causes more problems than the revert would
> > > > > actually fix.
> > > > 
> > > > Stop whining. Really.
> > > > 
> > > > Everybody understands that it should be fixed.  That's not the question.
> > > > 
> > > > But it should be fixed _quickly_. In this case, I have a bisection report 
> > > > FROM TWO DAYS AGO. And I'm still kicking myself for not just reverting 
> > > > that piece-of-shit commit then, because I spent the time to look at the 
> > > > oops and the commit, and could tell that it was crap.
> > > > 
> > > > Instead, I _did_ wait for the subsystem maintainer to get around to it. As 
> > > > a result of waiting, I've now wasted time for a lot of other people.
> > > 
> > > I do have a patch in my inbox from Johannes from 4 days ago that fixes 
> > > this issue.
> > > 
> > > 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=125697124819563&w=2
> > > 
> > > So what is the take away from this now? Do you wanna have Johannes 
> > > step over John and Dave and send such a patch directly to you?
> > 
> > The problem as i see it is the kind of answer Johannes gave when the bug 
> > was bisected to by Jeff Chua two days ago:
> > 
> >   Subject: wpa2 hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1. Revert
> >            7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixed it.
> > 
> >  [ <1257151742.3555.165.camel@johannes.local> ]
> >  ...
> >  |
> >  | On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:18 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> >  | > wpa2 (wpa_supplicant) hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1.
> >  |
> >  | Explain?
> >  |
> >  | > Reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixes it.
> >  |
> >  | Certainly not a good idea, will break when your AP denies association.
> >  |
> >  | johannes
> > 
> > Unhelpful, defensive, in denial.
> > 
> > Plus that you tried to berate Dmitry in this particular thread about the 
> > revert was pretty bad form too IMO.
> > 
> > _Anyone_ who went through the unnecessary, avoidable cost of having to 
> > do a bisection of a 3 days old commit merged at around -rc5 time is in 
> > his full rights to ask for a revert, straight from Linus if he thinks 
> > so. No ifs and when about it.
> > 
> > So IMO you are showing the wrong kind of attitude for a post-rc5 
> > regression, by a _wide_ margin. The right kind of attitude would be:
> > 
> >   "Oops, my bad - thanks. I've queued up a revert."
> > 
> > or:
> > 
> >   "Oops, my bad - thanks. Does the attached patch fix it?
> >    If not we'll revert it."
> > 
> > Furthermore, your 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all' 
> > argument is just a forewarning that you learned nothing and such 
> > avoidable incidents could repeat in the future.
> 
> who said 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all'. The fix for
> this issue is 4 days old and was already on the way to Linus. And I
> remember the first response was that this got fixed already and that the
> patch is going to Linus.

Well, what formed my opinion was the first response to Jeff Chua's 
bisection result - see it above, i quoted it in its entirety.

Thanks,

	Ingo