On Apr 26 2007 09:40, Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >For example, I can certainly say that after 2.6.21, I'm likely to be very >unhappy merging something that isn't "obviously safe". I knew the timer >changes were potentially painful, I just hadn't realized just *how* >painful they would be (we had some SATA/IDE changes too, of course, it's >not all just about the timers, those just ended up being more noticeable >to me than some of the other things were).
Perhaps do one at a time [ at the cost of queueing other stuff, yeah :( ] Like: 2.6.21 - only NO_HZ & hrtimers, and the SATA code in .22. Probably does not work out in reality, so perhaps just live with long rc cycles. (Let rc8 come.) >So we should have somebody like Christoph running -mm, and when things >break, we'll just sic Christoph on whoever broke it, and teach people >proper fear and respect! As it is, I think people tend to send things to >-mm a bit *too* eagerly, because there is no downside - Andrew is a "cheap >date" testing-wise, and always puts out ;) Yes, perhaps we need a weakchanges-mm ("weak" is inteded, not to be confused with week) that can carry stuff like doc updates, Kconfig updates, etc. - patches that are a little more than -trivial. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/