On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 08:45:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > 2) you can add them
> > runtime in userspace (and for pcmcia too after patch in question is
> > applied), so we've historically avoided that kind of patch for -stable.
>
>
> Due to distro installer environments, and very poor support for making
> dynamic PCI IDs persistent once added, what you describe is more of a
> goal than reality.
But distros can easily add the device id to their kernel if needed, it
isn't something that the -stable tree shoud be accepting. Otherwise, we
will be swamped with those types of patches...
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 08:45:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>> 2) you can add them
>>> runtime in userspace (and for pcmcia too after patch in question is
>>> applied), so we've historically avoided that kind of patch for -stable.
>>
>> Due to distro installer environments, and very poor support for making
>> dynamic PCI IDs persistent once added, what you describe is more of a
>> goal than reality.
>
> But distros can easily add the device id to their kernel if needed, it
> isn't something that the -stable tree shoud be accepting. Otherwise, we
> will be swamped with those types of patches...
>
Oh sure, leave the distros swamped with them instead. :)
And they all have to do it separately, meaning they don't stay in sync
and they duplicate each other's work...
> > But distros can easily add the device id to their kernel if needed, it
> > isn't something that the -stable tree shoud be accepting. Otherwise, we
> > will be swamped with those types of patches...
> >
>
> Oh sure, leave the distros swamped with them instead. :)
>
> And they all have to do it separately, meaning they don't stay in sync
> and they duplicate each other's work...
Well they *don't* have to work that separately. They could set up some
shared tree which would look suspiciously like what Greg is doing but
with the ID updates.... ;)
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:40:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > But distros can easily add the device id to their kernel if needed, it
> > > isn't something that the -stable tree shoud be accepting. Otherwise, we
> > > will be swamped with those types of patches...
> > >
> >
> > Oh sure, leave the distros swamped with them instead. :)
> >
> > And they all have to do it separately, meaning they don't stay in sync
> > and they duplicate each other's work...
>
> Well they *don't* have to work that separately. They could set up some
> shared tree which would look suspiciously like what Greg is doing but
> with the ID updates.... ;)
And is this really a problem? The whole goal of the -stable tree was to
accomidate the users who relied on kernel.org kernels, and wanted
bugfixes and security updates. It was not for new features or new
hardware support.
If people feel we should revisit this goal, then that's fine, and I have
no objection to that. But until then, I think the rules that we have
had in place for over the past 2 years should still remain in affect.
thanks,
greg k-h
* Greg KH ([email protected]) wrote:
> And is this really a problem? The whole goal of the -stable tree was to
> accomidate the users who relied on kernel.org kernels, and wanted
> bugfixes and security updates. It was not for new features or new
> hardware support.
>
> If people feel we should revisit this goal, then that's fine, and I have
> no objection to that. But until then, I think the rules that we have
> had in place for over the past 2 years should still remain in affect.
I have to agree. I went back through my mbox and found vanishingly few
pci_id update patches. So it's not clear there's even a big issue.
thanks,
-chris
Chris Wright wrote:
> * Greg KH ([email protected]) wrote:
>> And is this really a problem? The whole goal of the -stable tree was to
>> accomidate the users who relied on kernel.org kernels, and wanted
>> bugfixes and security updates. It was not for new features or new
>> hardware support.
>>
>> If people feel we should revisit this goal, then that's fine, and I have
>> no objection to that. But until then, I think the rules that we have
>> had in place for over the past 2 years should still remain in affect.
>
> I have to agree. I went back through my mbox and found vanishingly few
> pci_id update patches. So it's not clear there's even a big issue.
>
Of course you didn't find many -- most people know that's not part of
the -stable charter. If you asked for them you'd get them...