Re: Linux

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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 

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



       "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
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux