Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@...>, Mark Lord <lkml@...>, David Miller <davem@...>, <jesper.juhl@...>, <yoshfuji@...>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, <rjw@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Netdev <netdev@...>
...No, useless bug reports don't lead to a solution, ie., that particular
bug won't get fixed as a result of the report! That's what these people
are trying to say. Sure the point of bug reports is to get the bugs fixed,
don't you think? :-/ ...Or do you thing it's only secondary to get them
fixed.
I'm asking the same thing from you as I did from Mark (it still remains
unanswered)... What's your suggestion, how should we have solved this
particular case? Do you join those that ask for developers to "invest"
time to repeatedly go through the commits that are not guilty? ...One
would never find the solution by that method :-/.
Yes, I'm fine that you don't want to help (or would want but cannot help
like have been with many of nearly impossible to reproduce bugs with TCP
lately) but the sole consequence is that the bug remains unsolved, it's
plain simple. That's until somebody else is affected and reports and we
get the necessary information. Or alternatively somebody just reads the
offending code (possibly much later) and begins to wonder why there's this
particular thing missing there (this is in fact not related to the bug
reports at all, many bugs are found this way but it's not a thing one
can force to happen in a timely manner :-)).
Please reread the thread, this couldn't be farther from the truth...
...Dave had suggested Mark would have to bisect, I suppose this was after
founding out that there wasn't anything particular that should cause this
kind of behavior, or at least he couldn't find anything even suspicious
looking. Mark, with rather demanding tone, was _also_ asking for that
"somebody" who did all those TCP fin/closing changes (that would be me) to
be responsible over them, ie., those parts that Dave had checked and found
not suspicious (and bisect also proved them innocent later on). Yes, I
then went through that "mountain of commits" which Mark "was not willing
to do" himself. I invested the time even after Dave had also come to the
same conclusion as I again did, that there is nothing wrong with the
particular parts of the TCP. Funny, since it seems that even Mark himself
had come to that same conclusion as both Dave and myself then came (though
I cannot really speak for him). So I was third one to check those parts
which were then found not guilty, would I be angry about it, I would call
that plain waste of time :-). Please note too that I would have gone
through them without his remarks as well to just check the thing I already
knew.
So what's the problem with that. The thing that Mark wasn't very willing
to go through that "mountain of commits" and made some accusions that one
shouldn't ask user to do that, yet he was doing the same thing, asking for
me to go through that "mountain of commits". I don't find that as polite
as you do (and maybe you don't honestly either), especially as that was
_already done by Dave_, yet it wasn't enough for him.
[...doctor part snipped...]
But you would feel qualified to tell how the police/doctor must handle
it? ...That was the main problem.
To conclude I moved this your case down here...
It's perfectly fine that you report bugs, even with little time :-). But
then if you are asked to do something that is necessary to help developers
and you are not willing to do that, please don't start adding demands
(it might actually be quite hard to restrain oneself from adding hidden
"attacks" to wording, at least for me). Also we have to then accept the
concequences, ie., the bug won't get fixed because of that report
(unless something comes up later which connects the pieces).
I thought the same earlier, but I want to try to correct the misunderstand
you are tryng really hard to get here :-).
--
i.
--
