Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754627AbXIHRtq (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:49:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754061AbXIHRti (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:49:38 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:39304 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754045AbXIHRth (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:49:37 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <46E2E099.9040402@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:49:13 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070807 SeaMonkey/1.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thorsten Leemhuis CC: Takashi Iwai , Romano Giannetti , Andrew Morton , roger@computer-surgery.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, perex@suse.cz Subject: Re: easy alsa patches for the stable kernel? References: <20070822222902.GA28563@computer-surgery.co.uk> <20070905083844.6637da1e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070905091633.87cfaa81.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1189091390.3212.3.camel@rukbat> <1189115313.7275.5.camel@rukbat> <1189153347.15955.5.camel@rukbat> <46E13E31.1050409@leemhuis.info> <46E1A9AC.1050601@leemhuis.info> <46E24177.7070702@leemhuis.info> In-Reply-To: <46E24177.7070702@leemhuis.info> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2340 Lines: 51 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 08.09.2007 01:38, Takashi Iwai wrote: [backports to -stable] >> Linux will suck really if one breaks so-called stable thing easily >> without actually testing. For stable stuff, "it should be good" isn't >> enough. It must be: "it IS good." This applies (or should apply...) to everything that goes to Linus in his pre -rc1 merge windows. To post -rc1 submissions and even more so to -stable submissions, additional criteria apply. However, there are special kernel trees out there which accept backports. Linux distributors do backports, because they have the means to do so. > Linux IMHO will suck even more if crucial pieces of hardware does not > work for people easily, because Linux won't get even used then and will > frustrate people. > > Don't get me wrong; I understand and agree mostly to the points you > raised. But we nevertheless need to find a way to make todays hardware > usable more quickly, as that hardware is often on the market only for > some months or a year until the successor-model replaces it (which might > need new drivers or workarounds) -- In the end there is but one solution to this: Open specs. > but it sometimes even for small > alsa-fixes takes as many months to make it from the developers out to > the kernel and from there to the distributions the user uses. > > It works better in some areas of the kernels (SATA and Network drivers > come to my mind) where patches make it quicker into the linus- and > stable-kernels -- in parts that is due to better cooperation with the > hardware-vendors, but it seems the sub-tree maintainers have a better > patch-/workflow, which has a strong impact as well. Feature additions to SATA and networking, e.g. support of additional hardware, are not backported to -stable or merged post -rc1 either, I presume. Maybe they are better in getting stuff ready in time before merge windows open --- I don't know, I don't watch these subsystems. Maybe they have less trouble with closed or nonexisting specs...? -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--= -=--- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/