Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 185

Thread: The Huge Disaster Within The Linux 2.6.35 Kernel

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote 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

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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....

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

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

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote 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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default

    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.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default LKML posting

    Quote 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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    573

    Default

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •