On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Seems to be a 2.6.29->2.6.30 regression. > > > > > > This should be rejected as a duplicate of Bug #13505. > > > > > > > But #13505 was closed as "invalid". > > > > That's two people now whose systems have falied when they switched from > > a 2.6.29 kernel to a 2.6.30 kernel. That is a kernel-caused regression. > > "Causality" can be a peculiar notion. This particular bad effect is a > result of a combination of features in userspace and in the kernel. > (Bug #13505 was determined to be "caused" by a bogus udev rule.) Why > should we therefore conclude that the effect is a kernel regression? A "kernel-caused regression" is different from a "kernel regression". We need to be practical here. Look at the effects of each change and work out what we should do so as to produce the best result for real people using Linux in the real world. I have in the past rejected outright bugfixes because fixing the bug could break existing userspace. Such is life. > I suggest that the bug reporter search for a udev rule under either > /lib/udev or /etc/udev which writes "auto" to the mouse's power/level > attribute. Perhaps Marcus can tell us exactly where he found the bogus > rule on his system. Well that would help, and hopefully the number of people who are hitting this is small. But if the problem turns out to be significantly widespread then sure, we may end up deciding to provide a workaround in the kernel. For practical reasons. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
