Comment 153 for bug 642421

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 07:32:56AM -0000, markofealing wrote:
> Danny, thank you for the explaination, this makes a lot of sense but
> does not really explain how this was not picked up in testing before
> release. After all, doing an upgrade and installing updates is in my
> view "best practice" when doing an upgrade.

It was not located during testing as it did not affect any of the
systems on which the tests were performed. As Michaels very cogent
analysis demonstrates this is a race between unpacking the initramfs
and modules attempting to load. Now the way the boot works they may
fail then but will then load during the udev cold boot later in
userspace. This makes it highly unlikely that the messages are anything
other than cosmetic.

> May be Launchpad should have a way for the community members to
> prioritise the importance of fixing the bugs rather than being dependent
> on the developers who may have their own separate agendas?

This bug is known about, and due to Michaels detailed work likely is
fixable once we have done some performance analysis. But it is almost
cirtain from that analysis that the message (though prominant and bad
sounding) is benign in actuality. Though it may seem important to have
prettyness during boot, and understand we have a stated goal of a pretty
and non-techie friendly boot, achieving that is not a priority over
other types of bugs such as data corruption or crashes.

Michael once more thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of
this issue. I will try and figure out the best way to use that to
remove the error without penalising performance.

-apw