From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:20:55 -0400 Message-ID: <46B89BE7.8090903@garzik.org> References: <1186248703.3439.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1186458941.6637.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1186497106.3414.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:47065 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755988AbXHGQU5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:20:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1186497106.3414.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-scsi , linux-kernel James Bottomley wrote: > I'm arguing that a too strict an interpretation of bugfix only post -rc1 > will damage feature stabilisation. Please think carefully about this. > If we go out in a released kernel with a problematic user space ABI, we > end up being committed to it forever. IMO you're going off on your own tangent. Linus never singled out bsg (far from it, in fact, since bsg was not a major LOC contributor) or declared ABI-related fixes verboten. I don't think anyone wants to release a userspace ABI with problems, since we all know that's basically locked in stone once its in a mainline release. AFAICS his main complaint was he felt your push was a big honking huge change, late in the game, that included obvious non-fixes. And it was. lpfc was probably the biggest part of that, not bsg, and it's pretty clear such a big lpfc update should have gone in when the merge window was open. The [non-lpfc] cleanups were also not -rc2 material. Jeff