Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756949AbYBWLIT (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:08:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750850AbYBWLII (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:08:08 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40063 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805AbYBWLIH (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:08:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:07:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Michael Buesch Cc: Alexey Zaytsev , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch) Message-ID: <20080223110751.GN23833@elte.hu> References: <47BEAF3B.3080809@protei.ru> <200802221513.58608.mb@bu3sch.de> <47BF101F.30301@protei.ru> <200802221848.37902.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802221848.37902.mb@bu3sch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1893 Lines: 43 * Michael Buesch 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). 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. Ingo -- 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/