From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275232AbTHMPbr (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275234AbTHMPbr (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:47 -0400 Received: from host-64-213-145-173.atlantasolutions.com ([64.213.145.173]:30399 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275232AbTHMPbp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:45 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Tomas Szepe , Adrian Bunk , John Bradford , Riley@Williams.Name, Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP} Message-ID: <20030813153144.GA10579@gtf.org> References: <20030731091525.GI12849@louise.pinerecords.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:50:12AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > > 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. > > I can't follow your logic. This is now supposed to be a stable kernel, but > you want to have a bunch of non-working drivers available to reduce > confidence in it? If I have device X, why do you think I would need a > driver less if it were marked BROKEN? A broken list would be a great > starting point for people who are looking for something to do in 2.6. > > 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. Jeff