From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Oops/Warning report of the week of July 4th 2008 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:23:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20080704222341.GB9792@redhat.com> References: <486EA0D6.2040504@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetDev , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linville@redhat.com To: Arjan van de Ven Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:57961 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753184AbYGDWaj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:30:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <486EA0D6.2040504@linux.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 03:14:46PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > The stats look very similar to last week; Fedora released a 2.6.25.9 based > kernel upgrade, which led to a new sighting (at rank 12): the rt25xx wireless > driver is calling flush_workqueue() with a NULL parameter in some cases. > There has been a lot of thrash about the last report with regard to inclusion of wireless.git > into the Fedora kernel rpms. As an observer I can say that it's both a blessing and a bog. > It's a blessing in that this allows bugs to show up early before wireless.git hits mainline > (as an example: this is the third or fourth fedora rpm upgrade in a row that showed new and exciting > oopses/warnings due to rt25xx... as a result of very active development). It's a bog in that > it may expose users to not-quite-ready code. So far it seems the Fedora kernel maintainers are happy > enough with the overall balance that they continue the practice. I actually think we need to scale things back a notch wrt pushing wireless.git bits to users of released distros. The recent disaster in wireless caused a shitstorm in bugzilla that we never even saw in rawhide. A clear sign that we're pushing things too fast to users. It's great that we're getting this stuff tested, but at the same time, it doesn't give a great impression, and makes users reluctant to always apply the latest updates if the last time around they have to deal with this kind of fallout. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk