From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:59:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] block: fix blktrace timestamps Message-Id: <20080114075922.GA17686@elte.hu> List-Id: References: <20080111090723.GI6258@kernel.dk> <20080111092334.GA8143@elte.hu> <20080111092513.GO6258@kernel.dk> <20080111094205.GE8143@elte.hu> <20080111095654.GR6258@kernel.dk> <20080111102953.GA27223@elte.hu> <20080111122802.GT6258@kernel.dk> <20080111132106.GA16496@elte.hu> <20080111171855.GX6258@kernel.dk> <20080114075114.GA13195@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080114075114.GA13195@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jens Axboe Cc: David Dillow , Guillaume Chazarain , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrace@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, Andrew Morton * Ingo Molnar wrote: > because a perfectly working system is: > > "a user's .config that worked before should work with the new kernel > too" > > not: > > "a user's .config that worked before should work now too, with random > new kernel features enabled as well." > > the latter appears to be the rule you are applying, but it's not the > regression rule we are using. Jens, just to bring your definition of regressions to its logical conclusion: does this mean that if there is any longstanding bug in the block layer that you know about, but i didnt ever utilize that bit of the block layer it in my .config, and if i enable it now in the .config and i experience that bug, does it suddenly count as a regression? Do you realize that your definition for "regressions" turns _almost every_ current bug in the kernel into a regression? Ingo