From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261916AbVGRV13 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:27:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261903AbVGRV13 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:27:29 -0400 Received: from fmr17.intel.com ([134.134.136.16]:60333 "EHLO orsfmr002.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261916AbVGRV10 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:27:26 -0400 From: Mark Gross Organization: Intel To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Why is 2.6.12.2 less stable on my laptop than 2.6.10? Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:14:02 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Dave Jones , Jesper Juhl , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200507140912.22532.mgross@linux.intel.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <200507151447.46318.mgross@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507181414.02262.mgross@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 15 July 2005 16:14, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Mark Gross wrote: > > What would be wrong in expecting the folks making the driver changes > > have some story on how they are validating there changes don't break > > existing working hardware? I could probly be accomplished in open > > source with subsystem testing volenteers. > > Are you volunteering ? I am not volunteering. That last sentence was meant to say "It could probubly..." I'm just poking at a process change that would include a more formal validation / testing phase as part of getting change into the stable tree. I don't have any silver bullets. -- --mgross BTW: This may or may not be the opinion of my employer, more likely not.