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

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > If we fail to find out the solution in time, we always have the
> > alternative of backing out the ATAPI transfer chunk size update.  This
> 
> Which will break far more controllers and drives than it fixes, so
> backing it out is nonsensical and not in the general good.

No.

Regressions are worse. It doesn't matter AT ALL if you think that it 
breaks ten times more devices, if it's a regression and those devices 
didn't work in the past, they simply DO NOT COUNT.

				Linus
--
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
    • From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH git-sched 1/3] no need for 'affine wakeup' balancing in select_task_rq_fair() when task_cpu(p) == this_cpu
• Next by Date: Re: RT Load balance changes in sched-devel
• Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
• Next by thread: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]