From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262321AbVGWDJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262324AbVGWDJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:23 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:21404 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262321AbVGWDJW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version From: Lee Revell To: Alejandro Bonilla Cc: Blaisorblade , LKML , Andrian Bunk , "H. Peter Anvin" , torvalds@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <42E1986B.8070202@linuxwireless.org> References: <200507230244.11338.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <42E1986B.8070202@linuxwireless.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:19 -0400 Message-Id: <1122088160.6510.7.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:07 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: > I will get flames for this, but my laptop boots faster and sometimes > responds faster in 2.4.27 than in 2.6.12. Sorry, but this is the fact > for me. IBM T42. Sorry dude, but there's just no way that any automated process can catch these. You will have to provide a detailed bug report (with numbers) like everyone else so we can fix it. "Waiting for it to fix itself" is the WORST thing you can do. If you find a regression vs. an earlier kernel, please assume that you're the ONLY one to notice it and respond accordingly. Lee