Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> Newly broken ones will be regressions.  How many do we fix by the
>> change?  On SATA, setting the correct transfer chunk size doesn't seem
>> to fix many.
> 
> Regressions are not some kind of grand evil. Better to regress the odd
> device than continue to break entire controllers.

We need to put more weight on regressions as it at least makes releases
predictable to users.  Anyways, I wasn't saying it was some absolute
maxim.  I was literally asking how many so that we can evaluate the
trade off.

>>> Tejun - instead of backing out important updates for 2.6.24 we should
>>> just blacklist that specific drive for now and sort it nicely in 2.6.25,
>>> not revert stuff and break everyone elses ATAPI devices.
>> We'll need to blacklist setting transfer chunk size, eek, and let's
>> leave that as the last resort and hope that we find the solution soon.
>> Blacklist takes time to develop and temporary blacklist for just one
>> release doesn't sound like a good idea.
> 
> It seems to be sensible to me *if* it is just this one device we are
> somehow confusing and that one device is holding up fixing everything
> else.

Yeah, if it's this one device, I fully agree.  Let's see how debugging
turns out.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/