Re: 2.6.6-mm1

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:28:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> If vendors are forced to ship a nasty hack it often points at
> problems in the mainline kernel.  Certainly that's true in this
> case.

Yes, so let's discuss it and think about a nice clean solution rather
than hastily merge something that 'seems to work' without considering
the long term consequences of this.

> And if we are unable to fix the kernel acceptably then I'd prefer
> that the expedient fix be in the mainstream kernel so as to prevent
> divergence in user-visible features between vendor kernels.

And when we have a clean solution we will have to live with this hack
too.

> And let's remember, code-wise, this is a very small change.

It's not the code size --- it's the fact we add a strange new semantic
(magic group) without what IMO is sufficient thought and discussion
into a stable kernel series knowing that we will probably *NEVER* be
able to remove this wart once we have a better solution.

> But it's too late.

Why?  Also, most existing users will be 2.4.x --- why does that not
nee this but 2.6.x _MUST_ had it?

> This stuff is going out the door to end 2.6 users and that's just
> tough luck.  The least we can do is to ensure that it works the same
> across different vendor's kernels.

When was this issue properly discussed?  It seems like it's a new
issue that's be hurried out the door without much consultation.

It might be my interpretation, but this also reads to me like "I don't
think it's too ugly, it's my party so tough shit if you don't like it"
:)


  --cw



-
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/