[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100204181540.GA20922@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 18:15:40 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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."
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 07:12:18PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> > 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.
Before this patch, CONFIG_DRM_RADEON_KMS=y would crash your system on
boot. After this patch, CONFIG_DRM_RADEON_KMS=y still crashes your
system. There's certainly the argument that this means it's premature to
make that change, but given that the same configuration behaves in the
same way, it's clearly not a regression.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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