Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:29:55 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please consider reverting
	7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344
Message-ID: <20091103162955.GA4836@elte.hu>
References: <20091103053156.GA3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20091102.224957.32364226.davem@davemloft.net> <20091103065238.GE3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1257232587.3420.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.01.0911030719430.31845@localhost.localdomain> <1257262588.3420.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.01.0911030738260.31845@localhost.localdomain> <1257264485.3420.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1257264485.3420.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org


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

> Hi Linus,
> 
> > > 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.

	Ingo