[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080915223407.GB15421@havoc.gtf.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:34:07 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 03:07:46PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > You just rejected patches that (a) fixed dead ethernet [de2104x],
>
> And it's getting submitted now, because?!?
>
> (b) fixed an
> > oops [WAN], and
>
> It's WAN, it's been there forever, who cares and why now?
>
> > (c) fixed memory corruption [ehea].
>
> Again, it's been there for quite some time, why is it "now"
> all of sudden now important to integrate this fix?
Because users should not be forced to wait 3 months for fixes, for
admittedly serious bugs, which are ready for them right now. Small,
self-contained, tested, obvious fixes.
There is just something horribly wrong if you are not taking two-line
fixes for memory corruption, even if the problem existed since
kernel 1.2.13.
July 13: 2.6.26 released, merge window opens
July 29: 2.6.27-rc1 released, merge window closes
Sept 20? 2.6.27 release (wild guess)
Dec 25? 2.6.28 release (wild guess)
So if a small, easily-mergable fix for a major bug like an oops
appears on July 30, being strict to your plan has this fix waiting
until almost 2009 (2.6.28 release), a wait of over five months.
That is not serving Linux users, our primary customers.
Complaining about the 8139too change, I can see that (even though
Linus takes that stuff via libata all the time). But about memory
corruption and oopses? Come on.
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists