On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:47:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 00:33 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > the main goals for 2.6.16 are:
> > - no regressions
> > - security fixes
> >
> > And I did always say that things like adding new PCI IDs are
> > considered
> > OK for 2.6.16.
>
> I think the point that people are trying to make is that adding new PCI
> IDs carries an inherent risk of regression. Unless you have access to
> every device with that ID for regression testing it could be the
> difference between a machine where one device doesn't work and a machine
> that locks up hard.
"a machine that locks up hard" is a pretty uncommon case, and it should
be ruled out by the following two factors:
- patch must be in Linus' tree
- I'm asking the patch authors and maintainers of the affected subsystem
whether the patch is OK for 2.6.16
You never achieve 0% risk, but many bug fixes have a much higher risk of
regression.
I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of
regressions and act accordingly, and as soon as people will report
regressions compared to earlier 2.6.16 kernels I'll know that I'll have
done something wrong (but I haven't yet gotten such bug reports).
> Lee
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
