On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:51:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:01:40AM +0800, Li, Yan I wrote: > > This seems a change too aggressive for me. Do we have a good reason > > for taking this risk? > > It's generally much easier to find regressions (people complain) than it > is to find things that have never worked (people just assume Linux is > broken). That's true. But we are not sure how many regressions we'll meet and whether the efforts devoted to handle them is worthy. (How to handle regressions? Perhaps, ironically, we'll need another 'whitelist' for them!) > > Of course if we found the "actual problem" we'd conjure up a better > > fix. But before that, I'd prefer the conservative way. > > Does stock Windows work on the machine? I think this really ought to be > a pretty obvious minimal test before adding quirks to the kernel. Does this matter? Does whether Windows fail or not affect our decision here? (Worse that I have no "stock Windows XP" for testing. All I have are those companion Windows Recovery CDs that include all drivers). -- Li, Yan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
