Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP}

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
	Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>,
	John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>,
	Riley@Williams.Name, Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP}
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:17:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030813191709.GI569@fs.tum.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030813153144.GA10579@gtf.org>

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:50:12AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>...
> > If you get a bunch of compiler errors without a clear indication that the
> > driver is known to have problems, it is more likely to produce a "Linux is
> > crap" reaction. With the problems Windows is showing this week, I'd like
> > to show Linux as the reliable alternative, not whatever MS is saying about
> > hacker code this week.
> 
> The people who want Linux to be reliable won't be compiling their own
> kernels, typically.  Because, the people that _do_ compile their own
> kernels have sense enough to disable broken drivers :)  That's what Red
> Hat, SuSE, and others do today.

It occurs quite often that you need e.g. the latest -pre or -ac to
support some of your hardware.

These are situations when an average systems administrator has to 
compile his on kernel.

> 	Jeff

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