2020-10-24 19:26 GMT+02:00 Theo de Raadt <[email protected]>: > Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2020-10-24 19:01 GMT+02:00 Theo de Raadt <[email protected]>: > > > > Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Said another way, how was I supposed to find out this is unsupported? > > > > The way you just found out. > > > > > It's not like "a mirrored full-disk encrypted device" is an exotic > > > configuration that would give me pause. > > > > there's a song that goes "You can't always get what you want" > > > > Nothing is perfect. Do people rail against other groups in the same way? > > > > Alright, I'm disengaging. > > > > This was a bizarre interaction, I just reported a crash that doesn't > > even affect me anymore (I was disassembling that system), trying to > > follow the reporting guidelines as much as possible, for something that > > I had no way of knowing was unsupported. > > > > You are disengaging... but just have to get ONE MORE snipe in! > > Meanwhile, no diff. Not for the kernel, that would be difficult. > > But no diff for the manual pages either (it is rather obviously that > the people who hit this would know what what pages they read, and > where they should have seen a warning, and what form it should take)
Ah, if you're interested in a patch for the manual page, happy to send one. I'll read the contribution docs and send one tomorrow. I had suggested both the page and the section where I would have found a warning, but sending a diff telling you what you support and what you don't felt more like overstepping. In my own projects, I prefer users don't do that, as they can't know the boundary of what is supported and what is not.
