From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272420AbTGaJeT (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:34:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272443AbTGaJeT (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:34:19 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:32384 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272420AbTGaJeS (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:34:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:41:16 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200307310941.h6V9fGIL000804@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: bunk@fs.tum.de, szepe@pinerecords.com Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP} Cc: john@grabjohn.com, Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org, Riley@Williams.Name Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > If a _user_ of a stable kernel notices "it doesn't even compile" this > > > > gives a very bad impression of the quality of the Linux kernel. > > > > > > The keyword in this sentence is "stable." > > > Could you maybe come up with this again at around 2.6.40? :) > > > > The first stable kernel of the 2.6 kernel series will be 2.6.0. > > There are going to be a zillion drivers that don't compile by the > time 2.6.0 is released, which is precisely when lkml will see a whole > new wave of people willing to fix things so I really don't think > hiding the problems behind CONFIG_BROKEN or whatever is reasonable. They would simply stay behind CONFIG_BROKEN for longer, because fewer people would test them. Also, remember that some things might only give compile errors under certain circumstances. The _vast_ majority of kernels include TCP/IP support, for example, so something that breaks when it's not configured could easily go unnoticed for ages - does that mean it should be put behind CONFIG_BROKEN when it's discovered? John.