[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwMLp31bZhyHXxsqr=bbi9Kb+x3hrE8MF9eKydTbUTRLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:47:03 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: A workaround for request_firmware() stuck in module_init
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> It's not about a workaround but about doing it properly for the long term
> and doing it in one place. It's also not a "great change", its a small
> change.
udev needs to get fixed regardless.
Stop this "we can break stuff" crap. Who maintains udev? Regressions
are not acceptable. I'm not going to change the kernel because udev
broke, f*ck it.
Seriously. More projects need to realize that regressions are totally
and utterly unacceptable.
The "long term cleaner issues" can be handled separately, but are
*not* an excuse to work around clear regressions in core packages.
That just encourages those package maintainers to be shit maintainers.
Just fix udev, which had a regression. And stop blaming the kernel for
user space breakage! Tying these kinds of things together ("udev
broke, so now we need to change the kernel") is *wrong*. It's totally
unacceptable to tie the two together that way.
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