On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 09:36:30PM -0700, David Ford wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > > that. I see that 2.4 is getting all kinds of changes merged in
> > > that should be going on with 2.5. The recent VM changes have left
> > > us with deadlocks that we didn't have before. Shouldn't that have
> > > gone into 2.5 not 2.4?
> > Well, I think the bitterness comes from (partily anyways) it going into
> > 2.4.0-test9-pre1, along with other seemingly large updates, which did need
> > to go in but really don't sound right for a -test. I guess Linus didn't want
> > to see 2.3.1xx like we did with 2.1. But the 2.2.0-testX patches seemed like
> > small stuff (maybe my memory just sucks tho).
>
> The VM work has been scheduled to go in for a while. If you check the TODO
> emails from months back, it's always been there.
I wasn't arguing that (really) it's just that it really should have gone in
sooner. It's all really a moot point I understand, but still. major
overhauls should get in before the -testX IMHO. This is the point I think
Cort was going after. Sure it's been well tested. But it's a major rewrite
and it has introduced deadlocks (I'm going to have to track one down myself
I think, this weekend) that weren't there. I'm sure it also fixed some.
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST