Re: kernel-patch-amd64
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:46:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:05:37PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:32:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > > > Its also quite off the mark for amd64. The last kerel version had a 0 Byte
> > > > > patch for amd64 and only the current one has some patches in there to
> > > > > fix recent bugs.
> > > >
> > > > So what exact problems does the patch you propose solve? Which systems
> > > > don't boot/corrupt data/start nuclear wars without it? Do you
> > > > understand what exactly the patch does?
> > >
> > > Well, Christoph, i have trouble understanding all this religiuous anti
> > > patch problem. As in the case of the Marvell driver, what is the problem
> > > in having the patch as is available to debian/unstable users, _WHILE_ we
> > > are working on cleaning the situation ? Also, again if the last kernel
> > > version (2.6.6) had a obyte patch, and the current one (2.6.7) has only
> > > bug fixes, it is more than probable that those patches will also be
> > > submitted upstream pretty soon.
> >
> > If someone (in this case Christoph and Viro) isn't around continually
> > trying to get people to submit upstream, the users lose out because the
> > patch(es) never get submitted and rot. Or it just keeps getting bigger and
> > bigger and never gets reviewed.
>
> I doubt this applies in this case though.
>
> > In the amd64 case, I haven't seen anyone point out what kernel.org 2.6.7 is
> > missing that the big amd64 patch misses.
>
> Probably 2.6.8 development branch fixes and backports ?
I believe that statement is a strong argument for splitting
up the patches, so their purpose can more easily be determined.
Though in this cause they likely would not need to be pushed upstream.
--
Horms
Reply to: