Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:47:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 00:33 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > the main goals for 2.6.16 are:
> > - no regressions
> > - security fixes
> > 
> > And I did always say that things like adding new PCI IDs are
> > considered 
> > OK for 2.6.16. 
> 
> I think the point that people are trying to make is that adding new PCI
> IDs carries an inherent risk of regression.  Unless you have access to
> every device with that ID for regression testing it could be the
> difference between a machine where one device doesn't work and a machine
> that locks up hard.

"a machine that locks up hard" is a pretty uncommon case, and it should 
be ruled out by the following two factors:
- patch must be in Linus' tree
- I'm asking the patch authors and maintainers of the affected subsystem
  whether the patch is OK for 2.6.16

You never achieve 0% risk, but many bug fixes have a much higher risk of 
regression.

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).

> Lee

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