>"I did that already more than 5 times after I reported the problem."
You testing this out is appreciated. However, the number of times one tests is just one data point. What's most important is keeping your bug report relevant in cadence with upstream releases, and providing the information requested by upstream maintainers.
>"But I found no a single hint that the problem cause is found and solved."
StefanF, thank you for your comments. Regarding them:
>"Why should I test the latest mainline Kernel again?"
The upstream maintainer has requested this in https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ linux/+ bug/1178131/ comments/ 61 , with accompanying attachment.
>"I did that already more than 5 times after I reported the problem."
You testing this out is appreciated. However, the number of times one tests is just one data point. What's most important is keeping your bug report relevant in cadence with upstream releases, and providing the information requested by upstream maintainers.
>"But I found no a single hint that the problem cause is found and solved."
The upstream maintainer has previously explained that the reason the cause isn't found is because of the missing information requested in https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ linux/+ bug/1178131/ comments/ 61 .
>"See Bug Bug #1067222."
Unfortunately, asking one to read some other person's Expired report, would not terribly helpful here.
>"So testing again and again will not help anybody."
This would be inverted logic. Not performing the requested testing helps to ensure your bug falls out of relevance with upstream.
>"Please ask me when some related code has been changed."
Please see above.
Thank you for your understanding.