On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What I'm saying by "vendor driven" is that it has no relevance for the
> standard kernel, and since it has no relevance to that, then I have no
> incentives to merge it. The crash dump is only useful with people who
> actively look at the dumps, and I don't know _anybody_ outside of the
> specialized vendors you mention who actually do that.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the customers I deal with
buy a distribution and then put a kernel from kernel.org
on. I believe this comes about because of either needing fixes
or function that appear in later kernels that have not made
it to the distributions kernels yet.
Even if the distribution included LKCD in their kernel,
I lose lots of debug ability once customers switch over to
kernel.org and no longer have the LKCD patch.
Thus we are currently left with having to maintain LKCD patches for
many arbitrary kernel.org kernels and convince customers to apply
it BEFORE they start encountering problems that we'll have to look at.
Application of patches that aren't automatically included in kernel.org
rarely happens with our customer set (before problems occur),
no matter how much we flag the issue to them up front.
I realize that while my current capacity makes me fall into
the 'vendor' support you speak of, I believe I am actually
advocating its inclusion on behalf of real live customers.
Vendors can and do actually help linux development, by screening,
researching fixes, and or directly fixing lots of customer
problems that you never have to deal with. To do that, LKCD
is the debug weapon of choice.
I request you reconsider the inclusion of LKCD.
Regards, Dave
Mail : dave@austin.ibm.com Phone : 512-838-8248
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:55 EST