From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [BUG] net_cls: Panic occured when net_cls subsystem use Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:33:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20090531203327.GB2777@ami.dom.local> References: <20090530120750.GB3166@ami.dom.local> <1243686683.3966.117.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530124554.GC3166@ami.dom.local> <1243688628.3966.126.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530132047.GD3166@ami.dom.local> <1243690297.3966.135.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530140006.GE3166@ami.dom.local> <1243724933.3966.158.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090531075528.GA2756@ami.dom.local> <1243775830.3966.231.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Minoru Usui , Minoru Usui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org To: jamal Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f168.google.com ([209.85.220.168]:51596 "EHLO mail-fx0-f168.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752775AbZEaUdj (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2009 16:33:39 -0400 Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so5416407fxm.37 for ; Sun, 31 May 2009 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1243775830.3966.231.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 09:17:10AM -0400, jamal wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 09:55 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > Sure, after fixing it properly we should get rid of unneeded checks. > > > > > Anyway, it's worked for other classifiers like this for some time... > > > > > > Would you agree that it is/was a bandaid? > > > Or maybe you have some other fear that this may break something else and > > > prefer the workaround instead? > > > > If somebody decided to do it this way instead of the "proper" fix then > > it looks to me more like a bandaid "by design". > > I think your and my definition of "proper" are at odds here ;-> > My logic says there's a causality effect and you always fix the cause > in such a situation. > Here's the anology of our conversation (some captured above) as i see it > centred around a bug of leaky pipe which just messed up the carpet > overnight in some room: > > handyman Jamal: fix the pipe so it doesnt leak. > handyman Jarek: put a little bucket below the dripping spot > handyman Jamal: fixing this pipe is cheap - it is on warranty too > handyman Jarek: I fixed two other rooms by putting buckets > handyman Jamal: Proper: fix the pipe - you dont need the buckets forever > handyman Jarek: Proper fix is to put the bucket below any drip > > Of course i am exagerating to make a point on our logical approaches: > leaking pipes dont quiet match software bugs i.e. > a dripping pipe will have the short term sense of emergency of needing > buckets but in this case the cost of the damage and time is the same > if you put a bucket or fixed the pipe. Yes, you're exagerating; my point is: handyman Jarek: Proper fix is to fix the pipe, but since this hole is so old and there were other handymans who couldn't miss this let's do it with caution (2 way). > > > And, yes, I have some > > fear we could break some strange configs, which could depend on this > > wrong but working design. > > To continue our discussion > handyman Jamal: What is your fear about fixing the pipe? > handyman Jarek: Someone may have plants which depend on the drips; > so if you fix it his plants wont get water anymore. > > I hope the above doesnt offend you - it is meant in good spirit. No, dead plants don't offend me. But, if there is any kitten harmed - better beware! ;-) Cheers, Jarek P.