On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 17:12 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 07/14/2009 04:29 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 09:38 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >> On 07/13/2009 10:43 PM, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>>>>> "John" == John Stoffel <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Dammit, I messed up here sending this patch. I've just edited the > >>> subject line and re-sent it with a bit more description. I think this > >>> patch is perfectly good to go into 2.6.31 right now, esp since it's > >>> not changing code, just whether the code is turned on by default from > >>> now on. > >>> > >> I would like it if you'd also CC stable@xxxxxxxxxx on this patch. As this > >> condition is already true for distros in the field. > > > > The stable tree is for bug *fixes*. Moving an option out from under > > experimental is basically an enhancement, even if it could be argued it > > should have been done long ago. > > > > wouldn't you consider it a bug if a low-level plumbing like Udev is shipped > with hard dependency on it? Sure .. file a bug with udev ... The point is that if you use a feature marked "Experimental, do not use" it's not a bug in the provider if you use it. Arguably, all this really shows is that the distros ignore EXPERIMENTAL, so it's not really serving a useful purpose in the kernel. > if Udev was part of Kconfig it would have a "depend" on bsg. But because > it's a different product it can only rely on defaults? James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
