linux-kernel - Re: hung bootup with "drm/radeon/kms: move radeon KMS on/off switch out of staging."

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:12:18 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: hung bootup with "drm/radeon/kms: move radeon KMS on/off switch
 out of staging."

* Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 06:54:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > But you could claim that it's not a regression because 1) technically the 
> > code got introduced in drivers/staging/, and staging drivers are not on 
> > the regression list 2) the Kconfig value is default-off so it can only 
> > harm those who got lured by a new Kconfig value popping up in -rc7 in a 
> > well working driver they already have enabled.
> > 
> > So the moving of driver functionality from drivers/staging/ to drivers/ 
> > is a grey area it appears. Wouldnt it have been better to do this in the 
> > next merge window, as all other drivers do? It's not new hardware 
> > enablement either, it's feature enablement for an existing driver.
> 
> The reason the option was in staging (as has been mentioned before) was 
> because the ABI wasn't felt to be stable enough. Upstream is now willing to 
> commit to that stability, so now seems as good a time to move it as any. 
> There's no code change and there's no default configuration change, so I 
> really can't see any way that it can be classed as a regression.

But that argument in essence renders the regression policy meaningless for 
such code: just about any new driver feature under the sun could be shaped as 
a Kconfig option, introduced via a drivers/staging Kconfig entry, and then 
activated via a twoliner commit in a later -rc.

IMHO the point of tracking regressions is to reduce the bugginess of the 
kernel and thus to help users, not to give ground for legalistic arguments.

There _are_ common-sense exceptions from the regression rules, such as the 
introduction of a new piece of hardware that was previously unsupported 
(hence there's no expectation of stability) - but the tweaking of an 
existing, widely used driver (even if the new opion is default-off) hardly 
seems to qualify for that.

I dont mind making useful exceptions from rules, as long as we are honest 
about having done it.

Anyway, i've bisected it back to that Kconfig change and i am able to work 
the crashes around by reverting that, so my immediate problems are solved.

Thanks,

	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/