On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:49:42 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > Btw if you want to take this to its logical conclusion, we also > > shouldn't be "fixing" issues that are obvious from code review but > > people haven't hit in practice (this goes for a good chunk of the code > > churn in our driver involving cleanups and fixes for potential > > non-issues). And that's not even including test case development for > > any patch claiming it fixes anything. > > And most of those actually go through dinq, at least if the exact > impact is unclear and there's no testcase or bug to demonstrate the > issue. My gripes here are purely for pushing too much w/a patches to > -fixes, since both your patches and Ben's had regressions that hang > machines. Hence my grumpiness. Yeah, not sure why you were pushing them straight to -fixes in the first place. :) -fixes is just for known bug fixes that people are hitting, not speculative ones, especially workarounds we know work in theory but haven't applied to a specific bug. So we agree there. I'm hoping at least some of the known w/a's will be found to fix a known bug report, then we can push to -fixes and/or stable as appropriate. Jesse
