From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ray Lee Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored? Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:56:01 -0700 Message-ID: References: <013811$4lfs6@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com> <201108091809.58425.anarsoul@gmail.com> <20110809153446.GA22077@tugrik.mns.mnsspb.ru> <201108091903.00071.anarsoul@gmail.com> <20110809163206.GA3410@tugrik.mns.mnsspb.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110809163206.GA3410@tugrik.mns.mnsspb.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kirill Smelkov Cc: Vasily Khoruzhick , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Keith Packard , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Herbert Xu , Luke-Jr , LKML , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > Quite frankly, I don't understand intel-gfx developers attitude: why = is > it me, just random user who is nitpicking here? Why there is no > interest/will to analyze now obviously buggy/duplicate code and fix i= t? Because they don't have an infinite amount of manpower.=C2=A0Actual bug= s hitting actual users take precedence over 'cleanups' which always have a chance of causing regressions, as you're well aware. Code churn for the sake of abstract prettiness is discouraged, as it has a potential cost for little potential gain. If you like, submit a patch. You may now be more up-to-date on those particular code paths than most of the intel-gfx developers.