Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758644AbZJGBXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:23:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758531AbZJGBXQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:23:16 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.211.173]:55647 "EHLO mail-yw0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758611AbZJGBXP (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:23:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=EX3+bEKRfdH2gzsoku/suLhPGU1/3Zlf3wRwjgdVKzxE/JTiLBuCjoIdLYRsm2z/Bs G075mTfPFYlC9UPlqPPpIBh4kwIp/xyLVJtk2VopD9qAAmOJkR7fCvQRTdpA90xDWCYk l18CJFJVd62TXLHbuj8JJOj8UnsyEuU1AAIkU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1254797502.14122.146.camel@dhohndel-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com> <1254864803.6035.25.camel@pasglop> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:22:38 +1000 Message-ID: <21d7e9970910061822i429344amb47b0bceb552abc6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3 From: Dave Airlie To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Dirk Hohndel , Len Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2103 Lines: 51 On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> Sure, when doing the stuff ourselves. Again, the problem is user >> reports. Being able to distinguish between a 2.6.x "release" kernel and >> anything else would be of value, at least to me. > > Why are you arguing? CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO gives exactly that? > > Also, why do you think that "release" is any special? All the same things > are true about "is it -rc1 or is it -rc1-351-g58e57fb? When it comes to a > bug-report, the difference between the two can be huge. > >> I disagree. I understand the linearity problem. My point isn't about >> having the Makefile provide with any kind of precise "pointer" into that >> tree for non-release, but really only to differenciate a release from >> anything else. > > And your point is totally destroyed by any amount of thinking. Which you > clearly didn't do. > > I repeat: there are tons of kernels that would not be based directly on > that "-rc0" commit. You would confuse _those_ cases even more, because you > would now think that they are somehow "release" kernels. > > And the fact is, NONE OF YOUR BLATHERING has in any way shown why people > shouldn't just use CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO. > > I keep on returning to that, and harping on it, but the point is, WE > ALREADY SOLVED THIS PROBLEM. Every single person who asks for a -rc0 tag > is just being stupid. You already have a much superior solution. > > So don't ask me for something _stupid_, when you already have the smart > thing! Why don't you just have the kernel version Linux-commitid? why keep up the pretense that the 2.6.xx bit means anything outside of release? You could just have the tarball generation scripts make it into a 2.6.31 but for everyone else we never see it. Dave. -- 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/