On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:You say that, but you then ignore that something *did* change. Maybe it's not that one suspicious test. Maybe it's somethign else. But that commit was confirmed to break something, almost two months ago. You guys seem to be in denial, and saying "it didn't change anything". And no, waiting for more reporters when one reporter has already narrowed it down to the exact (smallish) commit, is simply not good. Either you can fix it by looking at the source, or it gets reverted. I was hoping somebody in SCSI-land would actually look at the commit and try to find out what's wrong, instead of all of you apparently trying to say "nothing is wrong". I hate the excuses of "but, but, but.. it *should* work". It doesn't. Face that, *then* you can argue about why. Linus --
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Yinghai Lu | Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption |
| Frederik Deweerdt | [-mm patch] remove tcp header from tcp_v4_check (take #2) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Herbert Xu | Re: [PATCH 2/3][NET_BATCH] net core use batching |
git: | |
