[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612101721070.12500@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:23:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>, Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org>,
Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz@....ch>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Brice Goglin <brice@...i.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Bauke Jan Douma <bjdouma@...all.nl>,
Tomasz Koprowski <tomek@...rowski.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> If life was that easy... ;-)
No. Life _is_ that easy.
If the 2.6.16 stable tree took a patch that was questionable, and we don't
know what the right answer to it is from the _regular_ tree, than the
patch violated the stable tree rules in the first place and should just be
reverted.
Once people know what the right answer is (and by "know", I mean: "not
guess") from the regular tree having been tested with it, and people
understanding the problem, then it can be re-instated.
But if you're just guessing, and people don't _know_ the right answer,
then just revert the whole questionable area. The patch shouldn't have
been there in the first place.
It really _is_ that simple.
Either it's a stable tree or it isn't.
Linus
-
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