> 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.
