Hi, On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 19:56 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > People trying to do regulatory testing want this feature, and other people > > that are not me also like to test with specific rates. Still a > > small-ish set of people, but bigger than just me at least. > > Till now i was interviewing different people who was asking for this for > ath9k-htc. So I would say we have: > - academical researchers > - testers > - R&D > - exploit and penetration testers > - HAM > - just hackers > > As for me, it sounds a s lot. Making (literally) millions of devices in the field hit a WARN_ON() is not really acceptable either though. You can argue that this introduced a regression, but putting the old behaviour back would equally be a regression, for more systems by a few orders of magnitude. In any case, I've already suggested a way to fix this, but you've both completely ignored that part of my email. All I've been reading is that you're demanding that I fix this, and arguments about how much people are allowed to shoot themselves in the foot, none of which is very constructive. I might even fix it myself eventually, if only to appease the people who say we have a zero tolerance no regressions rule, but it's not exactly the most important thing I'm doing right now (also, I'll be going on vacation for a few days, and you can probably implement my suggestion in that time, and then I can review it when I get back on Monday.) Let's just say that I think we're discussing the wrong thing here - we ought to be discussing how it can be fixed, and perhaps you can even be constructive in suggesting (and testing, which I can't really do) changes. johannes
