> On 2 September 2012 21:13, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > >> Index: vga_pci.c > >> =================================================================== > >> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/vga_pci.c,v > >> retrieving revision 1.68 > >> diff -u -r1.68 vga_pci.c > >> --- vga_pci.c 22 Aug 2012 20:58:30 -0000 1.68 > >> +++ vga_pci.c 2 Sep 2012 17:42:09 -0000 > >> @@ -186,7 +186,13 @@ > >> { 0xffff, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000 }, 1, 0 > >> }, > >> > >> - { /* All ATI video until further notice */ > >> + { > >> + { PCI_VENDOR_ATI, PCI_PRODUCT_ATI_RADEON_X1400, > >> + 0x0000, 0x0000 }, > >> + { 0xffff, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000}, 0, 0 > >> + }, > >> + > >> + { /* Other ATI video until further notice */ > >> { PCI_VENDOR_ATI, 0x0000, > >> 0x0000, 0x0000 }, > >> { 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000}, 1, 0 > > > > > > That's a great patch, because it doesn't find or fix the underlying > > issues. > > > > Then, when the next person -- who's video did need this -- finds out > > it no longer works, they can submit the inverse of your diff -- once > > again not undercovering the real issue. Of course, now it is their > > problem, not yours, right? > > > > Your diff can be summarized as "make it work for me, me, me, me". > > Awesome work. You know how to fix it just for yourself and submit a > > self-serving patch, hoping we'll commit it without looked deeper, so > > truly you are now an open source wizard. > > > > /sarcasm > > > > This is as unfair as it gets. Did i somehow miss the bit where Alexander > asks for OKs?
Here, you are confused. ok's are given to developers with accounts. He not a developer with an account. > I think this diff merely shows that he nailed it down to > specific piece of code. He gets a panic so how is his problem even 'fixed'? He nailed it down to the variable (that 1 vs 0) that controls the if statement that enters the code that explodes. It has a comment, which he deletes: /* All ATI video until further notice */ Quote a curious comment. So curious, one might want to go looking at the commit logs. Then the story becomes more clear -- we've had tons of problems in this area and don't have a solution yet. Tweaking the table further doesn't change shit. > Do not assume everyone around you is silly and ill-intended. I don't assume he's ill-intended. That diff says he's only thinking of solutions for himself. My point is people shouldn't hand out bad advice. That diff is bad advice. It is a diff created with very shallow consideration of what has been found. It's like those acpi tz diffs that help a few broken HP machines by solving a real problem in the wrong way -- and that wrong way hurts all the other machines. Yes, apply that diff, and go bravo, it fixes my machine. That is not a part of a good cooperative development process.