On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 18:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Not before it's been in the distro, no. Something like a PCI change > *definitely* should never be marked for stable, unless it causes > crashes or is a _new_ regression that causes dead machines. > > Because the likelihood that that 4-5 line "obvious" change breaks > things is pretty high. It needs testing elsewhere - on the machines > that weren't broken - in a big way first. > > And don't bother talking about "obvious fix". Especially not when it > comes to the PCI code. PCI resource allocation code for sure. A bug specific to the hotplug code path not so ... (for example, a too short reset delay or shit like that). I agree with you overall but there's still a judgement call happening at some point I assume and we get at least *some* flexibility as maintainers as to what we want going there or not right ? :-) Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html