Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750891AbWIWW6p (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:58:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750893AbWIWW6p (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:58:45 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:60175 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750852AbWIWW6o (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:58:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:58:38 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Lee Revell Cc: Jean Delvare , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1 Message-ID: <20060923225838.GJ5566@stusta.de> References: <20060922222300.GA5566@stusta.de> <20060922223859.GB21772@kroah.com> <20060922224735.GB5566@stusta.de> <20060922230928.GB22830@kroah.com> <20060923224909.69579243.khali@linux-fr.org> <20060923223348.GH5566@stusta.de> <1159051675.1097.194.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1159051675.1097.194.camel@mindpipe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1743 Lines: 47 On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:47:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 00:33 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > the main goals for 2.6.16 are: > > - no regressions > > - security fixes > > > > And I did always say that things like adding new PCI IDs are > > considered > > OK for 2.6.16. > > I think the point that people are trying to make is that adding new PCI > IDs carries an inherent risk of regression. Unless you have access to > every device with that ID for regression testing it could be the > difference between a machine where one device doesn't work and a machine > that locks up hard. "a machine that locks up hard" is a pretty uncommon case, and it should be ruled out by the following two factors: - patch must be in Linus' tree - I'm asking the patch authors and maintainers of the affected subsystem whether the patch is OK for 2.6.16 You never achieve 0% risk, but many bug fixes have a much higher risk of regression. I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of regressions and act accordingly, and as soon as people will report regressions compared to earlier 2.6.16 kernels I'll know that I'll have done something wrong (but I haven't yet gotten such bug reports). > Lee cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/