Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Randy Dunlap
2007-11-13T16:55:39Z

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:40:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you believe that our response to bug reports is adequate?
> > >
> > > Do you feel that making us feel and look like shit helps?
> >
> > That doesn't answer my question.
> >
> > See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem. If we do
> > this, then we can then have a think about what to do about it.
> >
> > I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I
> > resoundingly failed. People seemed to think that we're doing OK.

We were a minority.

> > But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief.
> >
> > This is not a minor matter. If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating
> > then this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening
> > for a number of years. By that stage there will be so much work to do
> > to get us back to an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort.
> > And it will take a long time after that for the kerel to get its
> > reputation back.
> >
> > So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is
> > happening.
>

[agree with most of Ingo's moaning]

> (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.

---
~Randy