From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755533AbYIPOrL (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:47:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753603AbYIPOq5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:46:57 -0400 Received: from smtp6.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.40]:41992 "EHLO smtp6.pp.htv.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624AbYIPOq5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:46:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:46:38 +0300 From: Adrian Bunk To: Theodore Tso , Jarek Poplawski , Thomas Bogendoerfer , David Miller , jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes Message-ID: <20080916144638.GB1400@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> References: <20080916104811.GC7397@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080916114305.GB10965@ff.dom.local> <20080916121528.GD7397@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080916135408.GB13388@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080916135408.GB13388@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:15:28PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > More seriously, there's a difference between Linus' "another random > > improvement" and an "is even suitable for -stable". > > > > I'm not reading Linus' (Cc'ed) statement the way that a patch that is > > appropriate for 2.6.27.1 is not appropriate for -rc now. > > Well, remember that patches that get published for -stable do have to > go through an extra review process. It's not true that any "obviously > correct" bug fix gets automatically published in -stable. Sometimes > bug fixes do get rejected for -stable because they are too risky, or > require more time for testing in the -rc series before they are deemed > suitable for -stable. >... > If it's a really important bug, and it affects a huge number of users, > or it's really bad security bug, the reality is that exceptions will > be made to the rules. But exceptions need to remain exceptions for > extraordinary situations, not everyday occurrences. And of course, if > the bug does affect a huge number of users, someone should be asking > the question why it wasn't detected sooner, say before the last merge > window --- and to ask the question how many users is this bug really > going to affect anyway? Among the patches David rejected based on what Linus said was Thomas' patch [1]. It is not a "really important bug" and does not affect "huge number of users". But it passes Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, and can we agree that if it gets submitted for 2.6.27.1 it will likely pass review and get applied? That's the kind of patches I'm talking about. > At least, that's my take on things, > > - Ted cu Adrian [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/105810 -- "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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:46:38 +0300 Message-ID: <20080916144638.GB1400@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> References: <20080916104811.GC7397@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080916114305.GB10965@ff.dom.local> <20080916121528.GD7397@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080916135408.GB13388@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 To: Theodore Tso , Jarek Poplawski , Thomas Bogendoerfer , David Miller , jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.ke Return-path: Received: from smtp6.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.40]:41992 "EHLO smtp6.pp.htv.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624AbYIPOq5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:46:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080916135408.GB13388@mit.edu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:15:28PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > More seriously, there's a difference between Linus' "another random > > improvement" and an "is even suitable for -stable". > > > > I'm not reading Linus' (Cc'ed) statement the way that a patch that is > > appropriate for 2.6.27.1 is not appropriate for -rc now. > > Well, remember that patches that get published for -stable do have to > go through an extra review process. It's not true that any "obviously > correct" bug fix gets automatically published in -stable. Sometimes > bug fixes do get rejected for -stable because they are too risky, or > require more time for testing in the -rc series before they are deemed > suitable for -stable. >... > If it's a really important bug, and it affects a huge number of users, > or it's really bad security bug, the reality is that exceptions will > be made to the rules. But exceptions need to remain exceptions for > extraordinary situations, not everyday occurrences. And of course, if > the bug does affect a huge number of users, someone should be asking > the question why it wasn't detected sooner, say before the last merge > window --- and to ask the question how many users is this bug really > going to affect anyway? Among the patches David rejected based on what Linus said was Thomas' patch [1]. It is not a "really important bug" and does not affect "huge number of users". But it passes Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, and can we agree that if it gets submitted for 2.6.27.1 it will likely pass review and get applied? That's the kind of patches I'm talking about. > At least, that's my take on things, > > - Ted cu Adrian [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/105810 -- "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