On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:46 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to. > > > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one > > > patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my > > > fault.) > > > > > > Given the huge number of stable patches over the past few years, only > > > having 2 patches be an issue sounds like things are working well for > > > people here. > > > > > > If I don't get pushback, with specifics, from the distros, I will not > > > know what to change, so if people can provide me that, it will help out > > > a lot. > > > > I agree ... I think Jiří and his Red Hat equivalent need to pipe up and > > give us more examples of the problems they've been having. > > I am still continuing with my pushback against the /dev/random revamp that > happened in -stable; at least in the form it happened. I still strongly > believe it's something that's not a stable material. But that's happening > in parallel in a different thread already. > > Okay, if you want another example: > > commit a6aa749906b92eaec6ca0469f90f35de26044d90 > Author: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Dec 20 15:05:14 2012 -0800 > > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c: fetch dmi version from SMBIOS if it exists > > While this is a correct fix for major kernel release, as it achieves > correctness by checking SMBIOS version properly and behaving according to > the spec, it actually causes an userspace ABI regression in some sense, as > it just changes byte order of /sys/class/dmi/id/product_uuid on certain > systems. [...] It wasn't even a correct fix, as it caused the DMI header to be detected in the wrong place on some machines. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part