* Paul Jackson ([email protected]) wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > Another 'by inspection' patch, perhaps we'll need to update the stable
> > rules, since these can be quite valid fixes, yet typically trigger
> > review replies asking if it's necessary for -stable.
>
> I'm scratching my head here, trying to figure out what is the
> bottom line of this comment.
>
> I'm guessing you're saying:
>
> "By inspection" patches, unless they have something further
> to recommend their inclusion, are not candidates for -stable.
Yes.
> But intent of your phrase "yet typically trigger review replies ..."
> went right past me ...
Sorry, I was thinking outloud, it wasn't a direct comment on this patch.
During the -stable review period, patches like these usually get some
squawks. And there are cases where 'found by inspection' are valid.
> > How unlikely? So unlikely that it's more a theoreitical race, or did
> > you find ways to trigger?
>
> I don't have a way to trigger it. My guess is that someday, some
> customer will find the right combination of calls, and be able to
> trigger this once every few hours or days. The odds are quite good
> that 2.6.13.* will live out its life before that happens. When it
> happens, it will be a customer doing some serious cpuset manipulations
> on serious big iron.
OK, we can hold until you find a good case for triggering ;-)
thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |