On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:03:47 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix > > > bugs in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since > > > we're supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate > > > pulling known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it > > > shows itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff > > > that they know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a > > > problem. ] > > > > Yeah, 100% agreed. I didn't hear any reports until after people > > started using your tree, so I think this case was handled > > correctly: push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes > > wide open for the possibility we'd need to revert. > > There's only one small gripe i have with the handling of it: the > timing. "9e9f46c: PCI: use ACPI _CRS data by default" was written > and committed on June 11th, two days _after_ the merge window > opened. > > That's way too late for maybe-broken changes to x86 lowlevel details > (especially if it touches hw-environmental interaction - which is > very hard to test with meaningful coverage), and it's also pretty > much the worst moment to solicit testing from people who are busy > getting their stuff to Linus and who are busy testing out any of the > unexpected interactions and bugs. True, the patch had been around long before that and I definitely should have committed it sooner. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
