From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:48:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:48:03 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:22956 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:47:56 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15095.24153.737361.998494@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 19:47:53 -0700 (PDT) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() bug In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <15095.15091.45238.172746@pizda.ninka.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > YOUR HEURISTIC IS WRONG! Please start the conversation this way next time. > I call that a bug. You don't. Fine. You made it sound like a data corrupter, a kernel crasher, and that any bug against a kernel with that patch indicates my patch caused it. There is an important distinction between "this is doing something silly" and "this will scramble your disk and crash the kernel". The latter is the conclusion several people came to. And I wanted a clarification on this, nothing more. I wanted this clarification from you _BECAUSE_ the original posting in this thread saw data corruption which went away after reverting my patch. But there is no possible connection between my patch and the crashes he saw. Many people have already concluded that "Linus says davem's patch is crap so it must have been causing the corruptions of the original reporter." Like you and I, most people are lazy. And a lazy person is likely to treat "bug goes away with reverting patch" plus "Linus says the patch is crap" as "get rid of the patch, this'll fix the bug". And that'll be the end of it, nobody will investigate the true cause of the problem until it shows up again later for some different reason. > But that code isn't coming anywhere _close_ to my tree until the two > match. And I stand by my assertion that it should be reverted from Alans > tree too. I have no intent to ever submit that patch to your tree, I know it's not the right way to solve this problem. In fact I submitted that patch to you as an "[RFC]" a long time ago and it fell on deaf ears. Or perhaps you happened to have laser eye surgery that particular day, who knows. :-) Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com