"Dave Jones" <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20061115031647.GR6591@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:25:19PM -0500, Charles Butterfield wrote: > > I've had what seems like a fairly serious kernel bug related to PCI > > scanning open for over a week, with no hint that anybody has read it, > > triaged it, etc. > > chances are, that no-one has read it or triaged it. > There are currently 696 FC5 kernel bugs open, and 208 FC6 kernel bugs > open. > The number of people actively working through those bugs you can count > on one hand. > > > Some feedback would sure be nice. > > I'll get to it (unless someone else beats me to it) eventually. > > Dave Dave - Thanks for the feedback. 1) I was kind of worried that I had messed up the bugzilla posting with the initially incorrect subsystem diagnosis (Xorg vs kernel). 2) Is this something that can just be kicked upstream? I would (naively) think a discrepancy between /proc/bus/pci/devices and /proc/bus/pci/xx/* would be a clear "OOPS" for whoever maintains the pci part of procfs, which I wouldn't think would be Fedora specific. 3) Am I correct in assuming that the referral to the upstream kernel folks must be done by a distro developer? That seems to be the gist of a message on their website. - Charlie -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
