[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46B89BE7.8090903@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:20:55 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2
James Bottomley wrote:
> I'm arguing that a too strict an interpretation of bugfix only post -rc1
> will damage feature stabilisation. Please think carefully about this.
> If we go out in a released kernel with a problematic user space ABI, we
> end up being committed to it forever.
IMO you're going off on your own tangent. Linus never singled out bsg
(far from it, in fact, since bsg was not a major LOC contributor) or
declared ABI-related fixes verboten.
I don't think anyone wants to release a userspace ABI with problems,
since we all know that's basically locked in stone once its in a
mainline release.
AFAICS his main complaint was he felt your push was a big honking huge
change, late in the game, that included obvious non-fixes. And it was.
lpfc was probably the biggest part of that, not bsg, and it's pretty
clear such a big lpfc update should have gone in when the merge window
was open. The [non-lpfc] cleanups were also not -rc2 material.
Jeff
-
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