Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932390AbWBMSU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:20:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932397AbWBMSU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:20:56 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:45015 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932390AbWBMSUz (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:20:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:16:59 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Dave Jones cc: Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mauro Tassinari , airlied@linux.ie Subject: Re: 2.6.16-rc3: more regressions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060213170945.GB6137@stusta.de> <20060213174658.GC23048@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 28 On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > DaveA, I'll apply this for now. Comments? Btw, the fact that Mauro has the same exact PCI ID (well, lspci stupidly suppresses the ID entirely, but the string seems to match the one that Dave Jones reports) may be unrelated. DaveJ (or Mauro): since you can test this, can you test having that ID there but _without_ the other changes to drm in -rc1? Ie was it the addition of that particular ID, or are the other radeon driver changes (which haven't had as much testing) perhaps the culprit? I realize that without the ID, that card would never have been tested anyway, but the point being that plain 2.6.15 with _just_ that ID added has at least gotten more testing on other (similar) chips. So before I revert that particular ID, it would be nice to know that it was broken even with the previous radeon driver state. Linus - 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/