Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1

On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:16:41PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Anyway, the case above was even not that. It was simply that if the shiny
new sata_piix driver detected the sata controller, it would then steal the
resources first, preventing ata_piix from registering.

I know that ATA is an area that requires extra care (and I don't plan
any big updates in this area).

But having:
- two saa7134 cards in your computer and
- one of them formerly not supported and
- depending on one of them being the first one
is a case you can theoretically construct, but then there's the point
that this is highly unlikely, and OTOH the value of the added support is
more realistic.

I don't personaly have problems with those cards (I don't use them at all),
I was just arguing general principles in response to Greg's comments. I
think you're already taking extreme care in what you accept, but I think
that what you're currently doing is middle way between Greg's stable policy
and what yourself would really like to do. I hope that in the end, you will
not get frustrated by refraining from merging patches you would have liked
to get, while being criticized for having merged too many.

Probably that later you will have to either maintain several other versions
(let's say 2.6.16+2.6.18) or have sort of an "enhanced" branch with more
fixes (which is easy to do with GIT).

Instead of 2.6.16+2.6.18, it would be easier to simply use 2.6.18.

And this is what I have in mind as a possible solution:

Start a similar stable series based on e.g. 2.6.22 or 2.6.24, and
announce an EOL date for 2.6.16 half a year or one year after this
branch starts.

Well, that's all very far in the future (even 2.6.22 + half a year will
most likely be in 2008), but it's better than backporting huge updates.

If I was as extremely regarding regressions as you describe regarding
hardware updates, I would also have to reject any bugfixes that are not
security fixes since they might cause regressions.

Hmm, don't say this publicly, you'll get people saying that it is what
they expect !

I say what I want to do, and I did say the same before I started
maintaining the 2.6.16 branch.

I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of
regressions and act accordingly, but I'm trying to do this in a
pragmatic way.

That's what I observed till now. I just wanted to warn you about the risks
of getting hit.

Is someone wants to prove me wrong, he should send me the reports of
regressions my changes have caused...

Cheers,
Willy

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Fedora Triaging and QA
    ... chances for regressions in Fedora updates, here is a good opportunity to ... relevant bugzilla reports. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel
    ... > we've regressed until after a kernel update is in the end-users hands. ... user-space component foo to be at least x.y.z if feature bar is used" ... Regressions will always occur when driver updates happen. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Linux 2.6.25-rc4
    ... but I was waiting for some updates for some of the ... most annoying regressions until releasing it, ... goes for the the scheduler regressions, and a number of annoying boot-time ... with the BNX2X network driver being and the new fsldma driver ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Linux v2.6.18-rc5
    ... > Linux 2.6.18-rc5 is out there now ... (Reporters Bcc'ed: please provide updates) ... Serious-looking regressions include: ...
    (Linux-Kernel)