Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760404AbXFQO3o (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:29:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757549AbXFQO3g (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:29:36 -0400 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:37503 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757373AbXFQO3g (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:29:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:29:50 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Michal Piotrowski Cc: Stefan Richter , Oleg Verych , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Diego Calleja , Chuck Ebbert , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: How to improve the quality of the kernel? Message-ID: <20070617142950.GW3588@stusta.de> References: <20070615234202.GP3588@stusta.de> <20070616013236.GA16016@flower.upol.cz> <4673D63D.5020804@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070617004436.GU3588@stusta.de> <467501D0.3090203@googlemail.com> <20070617124508.GV3588@stusta.de> <6bffcb0e0706170617k32e79d96q5af1bcd7d9492cb8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6bffcb0e0706170617k32e79d96q5af1bcd7d9492cb8@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2193 Lines: 63 On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... >> Fine with me, but: >> >> There are not so simple cases like big infrastructure patches with >> 20 other patches in the tree depending on it causing a regression, or >> even worse, a big infrastructure patch exposing a latent old bug in some >> completely different area of the kernel. > > It is different case. > > "If the patch introduces a new regression" > > introduces != exposes an old bug My remark was meant as a note "this sentence can't handle all regressions" (and for a user it doesn't matter whether a new regression is introduced or an old regression exposed). It could be we simply agree on this one. ;-) > Removal of 20 patches will be painful, but sometimes you need to > "choose minor evil to prevent a greater one" [1]. > >> And we should be aware that reverting is only a workaround for the real >> problem which lies in our bug handling. >... And this is something I want to emphasize again. How can we make any progress with the real problem and not only the symptoms? There's now much money in the Linux market, and the kernel quality problems might result in real costs in the support of companies like IBM, SGI, Redhat or Novell (plus it harms the Linux image which might result in lower revenues). If [1] this is true, it might even pay pay off for them to each assign X man hours per month of experienced kernel developers to upstream kernel bug handling? This is just a wild thought and it might be nonsense - better suggestions for solving our quality problems would be highly welcome... cu Adrian [1] note that this is an "if" -- "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/