From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1373854080.19894.322.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Guenter Roeck , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , stable Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:08:00 +1000 In-Reply-To: References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130711222935.GA11340@redhat.com> <20130711224455.GA17222@kroah.com> <20130712141530.GA3629@roeck-us.net> <20130712173150.GA5534@roeck-us.net> <1373845958.19894.320.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 18:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Not before it's been in the distro, no. Something like a PCI change > *definitely* should never be marked for stable, unless it causes > crashes or is a _new_ regression that causes dead machines. > > Because the likelihood that that 4-5 line "obvious" change breaks > things is pretty high. It needs testing elsewhere - on the machines > that weren't broken - in a big way first. > > And don't bother talking about "obvious fix". Especially not when it > comes to the PCI code. PCI resource allocation code for sure. A bug specific to the hotplug code path not so ... (for example, a too short reset delay or shit like that). I agree with you overall but there's still a judgement call happening at some point I assume and we get at least *some* flexibility as maintainers as to what we want going there or not right ? :-) Cheers, Ben.