Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Thomas> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these
> Thomas> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot
> Thomas> deal with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by
> Thomas> emitting a warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome.
> 
> My mistake. I was made aware of it earlier today and I'm working on a

Why didn't you send a revert to Linus right away?

Darn. I sent a pull request earlier today, which I immediately
revoked, when I noticed that it had a late reported testing
failure. It did not hit Linus public tree fortunately. I could have
said "I'm working on a fix" as well. But that's the wrong thing to do.

So for your thing, it was already in Linus tree. Though if you get
aware of it and it's revertable w/o creating lots of mess, then it's
the right thing to revert it immediately. Do not drag out regressions
longer than necessary, please.

> Surprised we didn't see any reports of this in -next. It's been
> in there for a while.

next does unfortunately get not the full exposure and it's neither a
replacement for common sense nor an excuse for not testing the common
case (i.e. non enterprise hardware with default distro configs)

Thanks,

	tglx