Re: Linux 2.6.21

Jan Engelhardt
2007-04-26T19:58:49Z

On Apr 26 2007 09:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>For example, I can certainly say that after 2.6.21, I'm likely to be very
>unhappy merging something that isn't "obviously safe". I knew the timer
>changes were potentially painful, I just hadn't realized just *how*
>painful they would be (we had some SATA/IDE changes too, of course, it's
>not all just about the timers, those just ended up being more noticeable
>to me than some of the other things were).

Perhaps do one at a time [ at the cost of queueing other stuff, yeah :( ]
Like: 2.6.21 - only NO_HZ & hrtimers, and the SATA code in .22. Probably does
not work out in reality, so perhaps just live with long rc cycles.
(Let rc8 come.)

>So we should have somebody like Christoph running -mm, and when things
>break, we'll just sic Christoph on whoever broke it, and teach people
>proper fear and respect! As it is, I think people tend to send things to
>-mm a bit *too* eagerly, because there is no downside - Andrew is a "cheap
>date" testing-wise, and always puts out ;)

Yes, perhaps we need a weakchanges-mm ("weak" is inteded, not to be confused
with week) that can carry stuff like doc updates, Kconfig updates, etc. -
patches that are a little more than -trivial.

Jan
--