> It was a bug in the kernel, as Torvalds has already admitted.
Where?
> It's obvious you're not a programmer.
I certainly am, and he's right. Stop trying to deflect blame. The kernel isn't responsible for preventing init from doing stupid things, init shouldn't do stupid things.
And most importantly, when your code does stupid things that breaks users, it is your responsibility to fix it, no matter what you think anybody else's code should be doing. If you can't accept that, you're a menace, and need to stop writing code.
"I guess this does mean that we have to apply my patch to rate-limit messages into the kernel."
......
"+Greg Kroah-Hartman: I really hoped that you could push the trivial and obvious one-liner through. What’s going on here?"
From LKML
"Steven, Borislav, one thing that strikes me might be a good idea is to
limit the amount of non-kernel noise in dmesg. We already have the
concept of rate-limiting various spammy internal kernel messages for
when device drivers misbehave etc. Maybe we can just add rate-limiting
to the interfaces that add messages to the kernel buffers, and work
around this problem that way instead while waiting for Gregs fix to
percolate?"
He even goes so far as to say:
"I don't think we should try to protect against willful bad behavior
unless that is shown to be necessary. Yeah, if it turns out that
systemd really does that just to mess with us, we'd need to extend it,
but in the absence of proof to the contrary, maybe this simple
attached patch works?"
Showing that even if systemd tried to get around the rate-limiting just to piss off the kernel developers, that it's a bug they would fix (which is the wrong stance for whatever it's worth; you should be using defensive programming, not waiting for someone to abuse it first, but at the very least shows that it's a kernel issue).
> I certainly am
Certainly not a very good one.
When a library has an error, is it your fault for triggering that problem, or do you log a bug with the library?
This isn't rocket science.
> And most importantly, when your code does stupid things that breaks users, it is your responsibility to fix it, no matter what you think anybody else's code should be doing. If you can't accept that, you're a menace, and need to stop writing code.
Greg Kroah-Hartman himself (on G+) said "the original bug that was causing the syslog spew to stop the box has been fixed in systemd.".
Please don't contribute to a conversation if you know absolutely fuck-all about it. Spreading misinformation is one of the world's worst problems, and you're simply contributing to it.
No mention of a bug in the kernel anywhere. I see systemd proponents just can't stop lying. Please don't contribute to a conversation when you can't be at all truthful.
Where?
> It's obvious you're not a programmer.
I certainly am, and he's right. Stop trying to deflect blame. The kernel isn't responsible for preventing init from doing stupid things, init shouldn't do stupid things.
And most importantly, when your code does stupid things that breaks users, it is your responsibility to fix it, no matter what you think anybody else's code should be doing. If you can't accept that, you're a menace, and need to stop writing code.