| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:59:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Cc: David Dillow <dillowda@...l.gov>, Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [patch] block: fix blktrace timestamps * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: > because a perfectly working system is: > > "a user's .config that worked before should work with the new kernel > too" > > not: > > "a user's .config that worked before should work now too, with random > new kernel features enabled as well." > > the latter appears to be the rule you are applying, but it's not the > regression rule we are using. Jens, just to bring your definition of regressions to its logical conclusion: does this mean that if there is any longstanding bug in the block layer that you know about, but i didnt ever utilize that bit of the block layer it in my .config, and if i enable it now in the .config and i experience that bug, does it suddenly count as a regression? Do you realize that your definition for "regressions" turns _almost every_ current bug in the kernel into a regression? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists