Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But having:
> - two saa7134 cards in your computer and
> - one of them formerly not supported and
> - depending on one of them being the first one
> is a case you can theoretically construct, but then there's the point
> that this is highly unlikely,
Yes, this is an unlikely scenario.
> and OTOH the value of the added support is more realistic.
But then I think people don't really expect additional hardware support
from a stable kernel series.
> If I was as extremely regarding regressions as you describe regarding
> hardware updates, I would also have to reject any bugfixes that are not
> security fixes since they might cause regressions.
>
> I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of
> regressions and act accordingly, but I'm trying to do this in a
> pragmatic way.
If there was more manpower, driver updates could be maintained as extra
patchkits separately to the kernel. I know that some people would like
to have exactly this: A minimally updated base plus a choice of specific
driver updates as add-ons.
In fact that's what I do with the IEEE 1394 drivers --- although not
primarily to support this kind of user base but rather to make it easier
to get bugfixes tested by bug reporters. However I can only afford to do
this by an all-or-nothing approach: I put almost _all_ driver changes
into these patchkits. That means full risk of regressions but also
complete feature updates and minimal divergence from mainline. This was
trivial to do so far.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =--= ==---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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]
