Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> writes: > Turn the "Why some bugs remain unfixed and some report are ignored" > section into a proper appendix while improving it slightly. > > Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> > --- > .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 102 +++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
Some comments below, but I have to ask: do we really need this section at all? Getting people to read long documents is hard, and this adds a fair amount of length to, essentially, say that the kernel is an open-source program like any other and its developers are not required to address your problems...? > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > index 9676ba85e1b73c..745e698cb6be8b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > @@ -1693,60 +1693,66 @@ for the subsystem where the issue seems to have its > roots; CC the mailing list > for the subsystem as well as the stable mailing list > ([email protected]). > > > -Why some issues won't get any reaction or remain unfixed after being reported > -============================================================================= > +Appendix: additional background information > +=========================================== > > -When reporting a problem to the Linux developers, be aware only 'issues of > high > -priority' (regressions, security issues, severe problems) are definitely > going > -to get resolved. The maintainers or if all else fails Linus Torvalds himself > -will make sure of that. They and the other kernel developers will fix a lot > of > -other issues as well. But be aware that sometimes they can't or won't help; > and > -sometimes there isn't even anyone to send a report to. > +.. _unfixedbugs_repiapdx: This label is seemingly unused? > -This is best explained with kernel developers that contribute to the Linux > -kernel in their spare time. Quite a few of the drivers in the kernel were > -written by such programmers, often because they simply wanted to make their > -hardware usable on their favorite operating system. > +Why some bugs remain unfixed and some report are ignored report*s* > +-------------------------------------------------------- > + > +When reporting a problem to the Linux developers, be aware that they are only > +obliged to fix regressions, security issues, and severe problems. Developers, > +maintainers, or, if all else fails, Linus Torvalds himself will make sure of > +that. They will fix a lot of other issues as well, but sometimes they can't > or > +won't help -- and sometimes there isn't even anyone to send a report to. > + > +This situation is best explained using kernel developers that contribute to > the "using" is weird; "highlighting" or some such? > +Linux kernel in their spare time. Quite a few of the drivers in the kernel > were > +written by such programmers; often they simply wanted to make the > +hardware they owned usable on their favorite operating system. This really kind of reinforces the old "developed in their parents' basement" stuff we used to hear; again, do we really need this? > These programmers most of the time will happily fix problems other people > -report. But nobody can force them to do, as they are contributing > voluntarily. > - > -Then there are situations where such developers really want to fix an issue, > -but can't: sometimes they lack hardware programming documentation to do so. > -This often happens when the publicly available docs are superficial or the > -driver was written with the help of reverse engineering. > - > -Sooner or later spare time developers will also stop caring for the driver. > -Maybe their test hardware broke, got replaced by something more fancy, or is > so > -old that it's something you don't find much outside of computer museums > -anymore. Sometimes developer stops caring for their code and Linux at all, as > -something different in their life became way more important. In some cases > -nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer – and nobody can be > forced > -to, as contributing to the Linux kernel is done on a voluntary basis. > Abandoned > -drivers nevertheless remain in the kernel: they are still useful for people > and > -removing would be a regression. > +report. But nobody can force them to do so, as they are contributing > +voluntarily. > + > +There are also situations where such developers would like to fix issues, > +but can't: They might lack programming documentation to do so or hardware to > +test. The former can happen when the publicly available docs are superficial > or > +when a driver was written with the help of reverse engineering. > + > +Sooner or later, spare-time developers usually stop caring for the driver. > +Maybe their test hardware broke, was replaced by something more fancy, or > +became so old that it is something you don't find much outside of computer > +museums anymore. Other times developers also stop caring when > +something different in life becomes more important to them. Then sometimes > +nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer -- and nobody else can > be > +forced to, as contributing is voluntary. The code nevertheless often stays > +around, as it is useful for people; removing it would also cause a > regression, > +which is not allowed in Linux. > > The situation is not that different with developers that are paid for their > -work on the Linux kernel. Those contribute most changes these days. But their > -employers sooner or later also stop caring for their code or make its > -programmer focus on other things. Hardware vendors for example earn their > money > -mainly by selling new hardware; quite a few of them hence are not investing > -much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for something they > -stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for a > -longer time period, but in new versions often leave support for old and rare > -hardware aside to limit the scope. Often spare time contributors take over > once > -a company orphans some code, but as mentioned above: sooner or later they > will > -leave the code behind, too. > - > -Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as maintainers > -quite often are forced to set those, as time to work on Linux is limited. > -That's true for spare time or the time employers grant their developers to > -spend on maintenance work on the upstream kernel. Sometimes maintainers also > -get overwhelmed with reports, even if a driver is working nearly perfectly. > To > -not get completely stuck, the programmer thus might have no other choice than > -to prioritize issue reports and reject some of them. > - > -But don't worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active > +work on the upstream Linux kernel. Those contribute the most changes these > days. > +But their employers set the priorities. And those sooner or later stop caring > +for some code or make their > +employees focus on other things. Hardware vendors, for example, earn their > money > +mainly by selling new hardware -- they thus often are not much interested in > +investing much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for a > chip > +they stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for > a > +longer time period, but in new versions might set support for old and rare > +hardware aside to limit the scope, too. Often spare-time contributors take > over > +once employed developers orphan some code, but as mentioned earlier: Sooner > or > +later they will usually leave the code behind, too. > + > +Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as developers > +quite often are forced to set those: The spare-time of volunteers or the time > +employers allot for upstream Linux kernel work is often limited. Sometimes > +developers are also flooded with good and bad reports, even if a driver is > +working well. To > +not get completely stuck, the programmers might have no other choice than > +to prioritize bug reports and ignore some. > + > +But do not worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active > maintainers who are quite interested in fixing as many issues as possible. Otherwise OK, I guess, but my overall question stands: do we really need this text? Thanks, jon
