Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Huge Disaster Within The Linux 2.6.35 Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by rekiah View Post
    Question: did YOU? "Other people," eh?
    We don't have:

    the dmesg output
    the .config
    output of lspci
    access to the hardware to test possible fixes

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rekiah View Post
      Question: did YOU? "Other people," eh?
      I have reported enough stuff in the past. And spent much time testing fixes. Did you?

      Michael has the hardware and the setup. It is his job to report it and his duty to test the patches.

      That is the deal.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
        We don't have:

        the dmesg output
        the .config
        output of lspci
        access to the hardware to test possible fixes
        You do have hardware to test it out on your own. Hell they even have these neat little things called VM's now days....

        Comment


        • #64
          I already thought it went way too much into drama side when the article mentioned benchmarks on Btrfs.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Michael View Post
            That though wouldn't go towards addressing the fundamental problem that this article is about: how such a glaringly severe regression can be pulled into the tree in the first place and then live there for days. Improving the status quo is what this article is intended to be about more than this bug per se.
            well if you'd done just a little bit more research you'd found the lkml thread mentioned in this forum thread before and you'd seen that it might not even be a kernel bug but an udev bug...

            the more spectacular news an article brings, the more effect you'll have to put in to make sure that you've got your facts straight.

            you're kind of falling flat-out on your face right now. and you're pissing of lots of kernel people. not very wise

            Comment


            • #66
              TBH I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you don't like phoronix, you don't have to read any of the articles on it. If you're complaining, because you want the articles to improve, maybe you should volunteer to write the articles, or be an editor.

              It's no more Michael's responsibility to report regressions as it is any of ours. This is opensource, people do what they want. His job is essentially to do what he wants and post it on phoronix. That happens to include benchmarking the kernel and posting the results. Now it's great that he managed to get so many people's attention, it's certainly what he wanted, and anybody getting really pissed on here is just getting pwned by his mastery. Why don't YOU report the bug then? I'm not because I can't be asked, and if you're not, you better admit it right now, you're a lazy ass, because you could've done it by now.

              I'm glad that he at least reported it on Phoronix, it's better than not doing anything at all right? Clearly Michael wanted to highlight the deficiencies of how things are submitted and admitted into the kernel. For those who of who say "you should know that it's not RC yet, so bugs aren't to be fixed yet", well this article just proves that this is how kernel developers think the process should work. He leaves it up to US to decide if that's how kernel development should work. Now just because he's doing that, you shouldn't call him a n00b and say Phoronix has found a new low. At the end of the day, phoronix is just another news site trying to grab readers, to feed people like Michael.

              Whether Michael decides to interfere with the development or not, it shouldn't matter, phoronix is supposed to be Linux news site with a tendency to talk about performance of hardware, and the software that it runs. Stop being so self-righteous people (well the people who are being self-righteous).

              Punk'd.

              Comment


              • #67
                LKML posting

                Originally posted by s4e8 View Post
                yeah, I reported that. It's quite bad indeed. I first thought it was something related to udev and kernel changes but after upgrading to a newer build of udev (in Fedora 14/rawhide) it still remained.

                It would be nice to know if these tests were done to see if udev or other processes were pegging the cpu.

                Shawn.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by spstarr View Post
                  yeah, I reported that. It's quite bad indeed. I first thought it was something related to udev and kernel changes but after upgrading to a newer build of udev (in Fedora 14/rawhide) it still remained.

                  It would be nice to know if these tests were done to see if udev or other processes were pegging the cpu.

                  Shawn.
                  Replying to myself is fun. They will revert the change.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Xanikseo View Post
                    TBH I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you don't like phoronix, you don't have to read any of the articles on it. If you're complaining, because you want the articles to improve, maybe you should volunteer to write the articles, or be an editor.

                    It's no more Michael's responsibility to report regressions as it is any of ours. This is opensource, people do what they want. His job is essentially to do what he wants and post it on phoronix. That happens to include benchmarking the kernel and posting the results. Now it's great that he managed to get so many people's attention, it's certainly what he wanted, and anybody getting really pissed on here is just getting pwned by his mastery. Why don't YOU report the bug then? I'm not because I can't be asked, and if you're not, you better admit it right now, you're a lazy ass, because you could've done it by now.

                    I'm glad that he at least reported it on Phoronix, it's better than not doing anything at all right? Clearly Michael wanted to highlight the deficiencies of how things are submitted and admitted into the kernel. For those who of who say "you should know that it's not RC yet, so bugs aren't to be fixed yet", well this article just proves that this is how kernel developers think the process should work. He leaves it up to US to decide if that's how kernel development should work. Now just because he's doing that, you shouldn't call him a n00b and say Phoronix has found a new low. At the end of the day, phoronix is just another news site trying to grab readers, to feed people like Michael.

                    Whether Michael decides to interfere with the development or not, it shouldn't matter, phoronix is supposed to be Linux news site with a tendency to talk about performance of hardware, and the software that it runs. Stop being so self-righteous people (well the people who are being self-righteous).

                    Punk'd.
                    Well said. For all of those that are saying he should file a bug report or post results on lkml, why couldn't the devs simply bookmark the results page on Phoromatic? Really if they can check a mail list they are just as capable of clicking on a web link to see the daily results.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Come on guys, let's settle down. Michael may have exagerated a bit, but now all of you are doing 10 times worse. All of you have your own reasons to say what you said, and Michael has his reasons to write the article as he did.

                      Let's move forward and just hope the kernel gets in a better stage.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X