> Those are your adjectives. "previous version" does not imply unstable
> and untested. On the contrary, I assure you that my previous versions
> plus patches are both stable and tested. Months of testing in hundreds
> of machines with huge varietries of hardware. Yes, it is unsupported,
> and so what? Is anyone buying support contracts around here?
>
Yes. This is allright until you ask mantainer to investigate. You not buying
support from them -- he's do support on it's own. Try to make his life easily:
make sure that this bug is still not fixed.
P.S. Situations where one bug will closed by other and resulting product is
working just fine is sutiation where "all bugs is fixed"... For example in
glibc is function sigismember(). This function could return 0 (no member),
1 (is member), -1 (wrong parameter). This function is called in the following
code:
-- cut --
for (s = 1; s <= NSIG; s++) {
if (sigismember(set, s) && sigismember(&sigwaited, s) == 1) {
-- cut --
this code is definitely wrong: sigismember could be != 0 not only when
sigismember() == 1, but also when sigismember() == -1 !! But really sigmember()
defined in glibc will return -1 only for s < 1 or s > NSIG so you could not
detect this error... This code is "right". Just a real-life example...
P.S. Really in glibc there was
-- cut --
for (s = 0; s <= NSIG; s++) {
if (sigismember(set, s) && sigismember(&sigwaited, s) == 1) {
-- cut --
and I am sent patch with the following
-- cut --
for (s = 1; s <= NSIG; s++) {
if (sigismember(set, s) == 1 && sigismember(&sigwaited, s) == 1) {
-- cut --
first line was accepted while second was declined since sigismember could not
be -1 for s in [1,NSIG]...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu