Comment 19 for bug 765438

Just to clarify my reasoning in marking this as Confirmed:

You really only need two people to mark a bug as Confirmed (and under *some* circumstances, the second person might not necessarily have actually experienced the bug), so long as (1) there is good reason to believe that they're experiencing the same bug (or the second person has some other way of identifying the bug, for example by examining the affected source code), and (2) there is enough information for a developer to start working on the bug. See https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/Statuses. When I marked this as Confirmed, I gave my reasoning in this case, but that should not be interpreted as an explanation of what it takes to correctly mark a bug as Confirmed. The official and correct explanation is at https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/Statuses.

This is not commentary on the request for this bug to be worked on quickly or to be marked with a high importance, just a clarification of what I posted earlier, when I changed this bug's status to Confirmed. (I don't have enough familiarity with the Linux kernel to identify where the problem is and write a fix, and I have no affiliation with Canonical, so I'm not one of the people Kangarooo is probably petitioning.)

By the way, I don't think bug 683775 is the same as this bug. Not only is that bug marked Fix Released (and that's usually accurate, though not always), but that bug affected 2.6-series kernels whereas this bug affects 2.8-series kernels, and the workarounds proposed for that bug were not the same as those proposed for this bug.