[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006012352150.8175@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module
libcrc32c"
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Hmm, you're still missing it. Let me try again.
>
> You weren't the best person to make the call. That didn't occur to you, did
> it?
Sure, fair enough.
At the same time, I'm the one who has to make the call. And quite often,
that call is "this causes more problems than it fixes, we need to revert
it".
Maybe I was too eager to revert this time. Quite often it ends up the
other way, where we end up having broken kernels for too long because
people weren't eager _enough_ to revert commits that had been bisected to
be troublesome. It's hard to tell beforehand.
And quite often, subsystem maintainers are _way_ too eager to not revert
the commits they wrote. So I really do end up having to balance that
force.
Does it always work out? Nope.
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