On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:46:52PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Thanks a lot for following through with this series! I would have > preferred to have the second step in stable as Russell suggested, > but since you did all the work, I'm not going to complain about it ;-)
Yeah, it'd be nicer to do it but given that the second step is adding a new, non-bitmask resource type to a set of resource types that have previously been all bitmasks I know I'd not get taken seriously suggesting it as a fix to a system integrator without a big argument about it and general unhappiness, most people doing stable releases I've worked with would have a similar response. It's not that it's unsafe, it's that it sets off alarm bells and requires more due dilligence. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
