From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264208AbTGKQhZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:37:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264219AbTGKQhZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:37:25 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:31202 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264208AbTGKQhY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:37:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Lars Marowsky-Bree cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.75 In-Reply-To: <20030711102728.GE24023@marowsky-bree.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > We'd like to avoid that nightmare for 2.6 though, so we definetely > care. Hey, all the better. However, in that case I'd strongly suggest up the management chain that people be aware of the fact that if they want 2.6.x to be stable on anything but x86, it will need testing. Both internally and externally. By doing things like running all the internal machines on a pre-2.6 kernel. The same is true of x86 too, but there at least there will be test coverage even without vendor support. Vendors making their own internal distributions with pre-2.6 kernels will help on x86 too, of course. Hint hint. (Late 2.3.x got much better coverage through things like this, so I'm not all that pessimistic. But people need to be aware of the issue). Linus