From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:25:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20080915232522.GD15421@havoc.gtf.org> References: <20080915215307.GA10340@alpha.franken.de> <20080915.151125.93659986.davem@davemloft.net> <20080915223807.GC15421@havoc.gtf.org> <20080915.154105.161656793.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from havoc.gtf.org ([69.61.125.42]:59137 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753649AbYIOXZY (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:25:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080915.154105.161656793.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 03:41:05PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:38:07 -0400 > > > He continues to take non-regression fixes and minor cosmetic commits > > from other trees. > > I could complain about that, but he's pushed back hard enough > on me that I don't consider that very fruitful. > > Feel free if you want. My impression was that Linus was in Wrath of God(tm) mode and he was reacting strongly for effect not being specific. But I would rather push my fixes, than complain about others' changes :) > > Late -rc does not mean "no bug fixes at all except regressions" if you > > look at the commits going into the kernel tree. > > Actually, since you brought this up, he's allowing this largely in > obscure subsystems and/or code he happens to be personally working on > fixes for. Well, obscure subsystems like PCI PCI: Fix printk warnings in setup-bus.c PCI: Fix printk warnings in probe.c or libata sata_inic162x: enable LED blinking ata: duplicate variable sparse warning or ia64 (this is not a regression, but a regular bug) ia64: fix panic during `modprobe -r xpc' or bugs that have existed for a long time, bfs: fix Lockdep warning As I understand and observe, Linus never ever wants to create hard-and-fast rules, in this or anything, but set a general guideline of not putting in changes (fixes or whatever) late in the game that have a ghost of a chance of creating further problems. That is the underlying issue... don't create new headaches, _especially_ for large userbases ;-) So, I -totally- understand your reaction, but I think this is erring too far on the side of caution. Oh well... Jeff