[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx7Lax+m6wvPyfu_Om2aL-gYBEmfcrEqiC_nqCm1pwW6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:40:20 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> So if I read this (and stable_kernel_rules.txt) correctly, that means that
> for example, let's say, we find in RHEL66 or SLES42 (possibly following
> a user report), for example, that PCI hotplug is broken with some category
> of devices on some machines.
>
> We do a fix, it's roughtly 4 or 5 lines, pretty self contained. We get it
> into the distro.
>
> That still doesn't qualify for stable right ?
Not before it's been in the distro, no. Something like a PCI change
*definitely* should never be marked for stable, unless it causes
crashes or is a _new_ regression that causes dead machines.
Because the likelihood that that 4-5 line "obvious" change breaks
things is pretty high. It needs testing elsewhere - on the machines
that weren't broken - in a big way first.
And don't bother talking about "obvious fix". Especially not when it
comes to the PCI code.
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