Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1

Adrian Bunk
2006-09-23T22:13:01Z

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:09:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:47:35AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:59PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:23:00AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Andrew Burri:
> > > > V4L/DVB: Add support for Kworld ATSC110
> > > >
> > > > Curt Meyers:
> > > > V4L/DVB: KWorld ATSC110: implement set_pll_input
> > > > V4L/DVB: Kworld ATSC110: enable composite and svideo inputs
> > > > V4L/DVB: Kworld ATSC110: initialize the tuner for analog mode on module load
> > > >
> > > > Giampiero Giancipoli:
> > > > V4L/DVB: Added support for the LifeView FlyDVB-T LR301 card
> > > >
> > > > Hartmut Hackmann:
> > > > V4L/DVB: Added support for the ADS Instant TV DUO Cardbus PTV331
> > > > V4L/DVB: Added PCI IDs of 2 LifeView Cards
> > > > V4L/DVB: Corrected CVBS input for the AVERMEDIA 777 DVB-T
> > > > V4L/DVB: Added support for the new Lifeview hybrid cardbus modules
> > > > V4L/DVB: TDA10046 Driver update
> > > > V4L/DVB: TDA8290 update
> > > >
> > > > Peter Hartshorn:
> > > > V4L/DVB: Added support for the Tevion DVB-T 220RF card
> > >
> > > Hm, all of these patches seems like these are new features being
> > > backported to the 2.6.16.y kernel, which is not really allowed under the
> > > current -stable rules.
> > >
> > > Or are these patches just bugfixes that fix with the current -stable
> > > rules?
> >
> > They add support for additional hardware to the saa7134 driver.
>
> That's not a bugfix.

See below.

> > If you look at the actual diff there's not much that could cause any
> > regression since nearly all of these change don't change anything for
> > the already supported cards.
>
> I'm not disagreeing about the regression issue. I'm just concerned
> because you are starting down the slope of "backporting new driver
> support" to the 2.6.16 tree, and that's something that I thought you did
> not want to do.
>
> But if it is, let us know, and we can discuss it.

I always said that things like adding new PCI IDs are OK for 2.6.16.

> > As long as there's not a serious risk of regressions, such additions are
> > welcome in 2.6.16.
>
> Are you sure? That really goes against the -stable rules as we
> originally set them out to be.
>
> If you want to accept new drivers and backports like this, I think you
> will find it very hard to determine what to say yes or no to in the
> future. It's the main problem that everyone who has tried to maintain a
> stable tree has run into, that is why we set up the -stable rules to be
> what they are for that very reason.

My primary priorities are:
- no regressions
- security fixes

If adding support for hardware without a very low regression risk is
possible (bugfixes usually have a much higher risk), I don't see the
point against doing it.

If adding support for hardware would have a regression risk I'll always
say no - no matter how important the hardware is (I'd expect this e.g.
in the near future for SATA).

I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of
regressions and act accordingly, and as soon as people will report
regressions compared to earlier 2.6.16 kernels I'll know that I'll have
done something wrong (but I haven't yet gotten such bug reports).

> > "is not really allowed under the current -stable rules" is a bit hard to
> > answer, but considering that "Missing PCI id update for VIA IDE" was OK
> > for 2.6.17.12 I'd say it's consistent with what you are doing.
>
> That was a bugfix as the driver could not access that device without
> that fix. Just adding a device id is not something that we normally
> will take, as that is what the sysfs "newid" is for. That patch was
> obviously something else.

I read the changelog differently.

Anyway, I'm not really seeing any non-academical difference between "as
the driver could not access that device without that fix" and "adding
support for a device to a driver" - it's all about a device that tdidn't
work before and does work after the patch.

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed