[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Still bug-hunting

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Still bug-hunting
From: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:07:00 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050305105706.2c8a6975.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4229F2EC.8090103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050305102918.15fd422c.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4229FC15.3070408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050305104854.45106335.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <422A0079.4080806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050305105706.2c8a6975.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817
Actually we are a company and the big ones decided to buy new servers to work-around this bug. This is a common technique in companies. I say this sucks and thats why I experienced in our production system in order to give linux something back by reporting and helping to fix a bug which only appears on big systems. I do not understand why you start flaming at me.

David S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:54:49 +0100
Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You as an expert should know that this is no one-liner. It is a very complex server with multiplexing and forking like Apache. I dont feel like writing an apache-like program just for testing. I hope you understand that I prefered investing my time in acutally searching the bug and now its found. Now I hope that you can fix it or at least tell me your ideas.

You could give us the program you actually used, no writing
necessary.  Obviously you had this program, else you wouldn't
have anything to report at all.

There's nothing "to write", you have it already by implication.

Instead, you told us "do something like this, or that" and lots
of vague statements and brief incomplete code snippets, then
expect us to figure out how the magic beans work and fix your

And you want respect and help from us? :-)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>