Re: Linux

From: Stefan Richter
Date: Sun Sep 24 2006 - 15:52:50 EST

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But having:
> - two saa7134 cards in your computer and
> - one of them formerly not supported and
> - depending on one of them being the first one
> is a case you can theoretically construct, but then there's the point
> that this is highly unlikely,

Yes, this is an unlikely scenario.

> and OTOH the value of the added support is more realistic.

But then I think people don't really expect additional hardware support
from a stable kernel series.

> If I was as extremely regarding regressions as you describe regarding
> hardware updates, I would also have to reject any bugfixes that are not
> security fixes since they might cause regressions.
> I do know that the only value of the 2.6.16 tree lies in a lack of
> regressions and act accordingly, but I'm trying to do this in a
> pragmatic way.

If there was more manpower, driver updates could be maintained as extra
patchkits separately to the kernel. I know that some people would like
to have exactly this: A minimally updated base plus a choice of specific
driver updates as add-ons.

In fact that's what I do with the IEEE 1394 drivers --- although not
primarily to support this kind of user base but rather to make it easier
to get bugfixes tested by bug reporters. However I can only afford to do
this by an all-or-nothing approach: I put almost _all_ driver changes
into these patchkits. That means full risk of regressions but also
complete feature updates and minimal divergence from mainline. This was
trivial to do so far.
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =--= ==---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at