[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1373854080.19894.322.camel@pasglop>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:08:00 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, 2013-07-14 at 18:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.
PCI resource allocation code for sure. A bug specific to the hotplug
code path not so ... (for example, a too short reset delay or shit like
that). I agree with you overall but there's still a judgement call
happening at some point I assume and we get at least *some* flexibility
as maintainers as to what we want going there or not right ? :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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