Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764059AbXKNTzJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:55:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756817AbXKNTy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:54:56 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:41420 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754102AbXKNTyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:54:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:54:16 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Nick Piggin cc: Andrew Morton , Christian Kujau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs In-Reply-To: <200711140356.31483.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20071113034916.2556edd7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113130411.26ccae12.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200711140356.31483.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2524 Lines: 61 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Not if you said their regression causing patches will get reverted unless it > can be fixed for release. Actually, I'm pretty happy reverting patches that cause regressions even if it *can* be "fixed for release". If there isn't a fix available within a day or two, it should get reverted. The "fix" can then be re-applying the *fixed* patch - and at that point we should strive to require the person who re-submits the patch (with fixes) having to have an Ack from the person who found the problem in the first place, so that it's verified to actually fix things! So I really would encourage people to send me emails like Please revert commit xyz, because it breaks abc, and there is no fix available even though this was reported x days ago. I have verified that revert just that change fixes the issue. and just make the "because it breaks abc" be specific and clear enough that I go "Ahh, ok, I'd better revert it". Also, please notice the latter part of the suggestion above: even if somebody has bisected down their problem to a specific commit, I really *do* want to hear that actually undoing the commit on top of the current tree acually fixes it again, because sometimes that just isn't the case - sometimes you end up having various interactions that means that reverting a commit might simply not even work. I have no trouble at all with reverting commits in general. I think regressions are serious. So the problematic cases are the cases where: - the commit no longer reverts cleanly, or just otherwise introduces other infrastructure that other commits that already got merged depend on. So sometimes you actually need a patch along with the revert (Andrew does that kind of thing anyway, since he works with patches regardless, so the "needs a patch" case is obviously not limited to just the problem cases) - more commonly: it's not entirely clear which commit actually caused the problem. but I *do* want to encourage people to revert (and ask other people to revert) much more aggressively. I personally try to revert things that people report regressions to me about very actively, unless I know somebody already has or is working on a fix. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/