On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:16, Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll
> ack it and hopefully DaveM will pick it up.
As 2.6.35-rc1 is out, does this mean that we are looking at 2.6.36 at the
earliest? Or could this make it in as it is
a) a bug fix
b) tested in the field
c) a small change
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> As 2.6.35-rc1 is out, does this mean that we are looking at 2.6.36 at the
> earliest? Or could this make it in as it is
>
> a) a bug fix
This isn't really a bug fix. Its a behavioural change to work around
poor quality/mismatched underlying PPP channels.
Regards,
Ben.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 13:18, Ben McKeegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> This isn't really a bug fix. Its a behavioural change to work around poor
> quality/mismatched underlying PPP channels.
Maybe not a bug in the Linux kernel itself, but certainly in the real world
that exists around Linux. Similar to how a change to a device driver that
is needed to work around broken hardware is a bug fix, imo.
RIchard
From: Richard Hartmann <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:28:59 +0200
> Maybe not a bug in the Linux kernel itself, but certainly in the real world
> that exists around Linux. Similar to how a change to a device driver that
> is needed to work around broken hardware is a bug fix, imo.
It's not the same situation at all.
It is easier to fix misconfigured products that exist because of
software and configurations than it is to fix a physical piece of
hardware.
So you could work around it if you wanted to.
I definitely don't see this as -stable material, as a result. We will
push it to net-next-2.6 and it will thus hit 2.6.36 as previously
mentioned.