Re: 2.6.37 considered stable?

From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Fri Feb 04 2011 - 08:11:01 EST

Next message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH 0/2] perf_events: add support for Intel fixed counter 2"
Previous message: Stephane Eranian: "[PATCH 1/2] perf_events: add support for Intel fixed counter 2 This patch adds support for the unhalted_reference_cycles event which measures reference cycles, i.e., elapsed cycles at the nominal clock speed of the CPU. This event can only be measured by fixed counter 2."
In reply to: Martin Knoblauch: "2.6.37 considered stable?"
Next in thread: Gene Heskett: "Re: 2.6.37 considered stable?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 04:51 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> just curious and no criticism intended :-) Is 2.6.37 so stable, that it doesn't
> need fixes? I mean, it is almost a month out in the wild and no stable release.

We're lulling bugs into a false sense of security. We'll slaughter them
by the hundreds in their sleep :)

-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH 0/2] perf_events: add support for Intel fixed counter 2"
Previous message: Stephane Eranian: "[PATCH 1/2] perf_events: add support for Intel fixed counter 2 This patch adds support for the unhalted_reference_cycles event which measures reference cycles, i.e., elapsed cycles at the nominal clock speed of the CPU. This event can only be measured by fixed counter 2."
In reply to: Martin Knoblauch: "2.6.37 considered stable?"
Next in thread: Gene Heskett: "Re: 2.6.37 considered stable?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]