Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Ingo Molnar
2007-11-14T20:18:35Z

* Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds
> > > > for all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the
> > > > separate netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should
> > > > be discussed and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any
> > > > artificial split of the lk discussion space is bad.)
> > >
> > > but here I disagree. LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major
> > > subsystems need their own discussion areas.
> >
> > That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of
> > discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > easier to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > by people, etc.) than it is to gobble information together from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > various fractured sources. We learned it _again and again_ that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > isolation of kernel discussions causes bad things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on
> > netdev some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had
> > it been all on lkml we'd all be aware of it.
>
> or had <someone> been on netdev.

countered by the underlined sentences above, just in case you missed it.

Ingo