On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:Yes. _If_ we had known how painful the timer changes would end up being, we'd probably have done them separately from everything else. That is the kind of thing that looks obvious in hindsight: merge stuff that is questionable and scary alone, and don't do anything else that release cycle. But while the timer code is obviously pretty core, I think everybody expected it to be a lot easier to merge (and it had existed as patches in various forms for some time). So we simply didn't know beforehand that it was going to cause the kinds of regressions it did cause (and in fact, some of the regressions were initially blamed on other things entirely - some of them looked like IO regressions). Water under the bridge. It's also easy to say in hindsight that something should have been merged separately and been given a release cycle all its own. Linus -
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Martin Michlmayr | Network slowdown due to CFS |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Christos Zoulas | Re: Boot device confusion |
| Manuel Bouyer | Re: NFSv3 bug |
| Anders Magnusson | Re: setsockopt() compat issue |
| Martin Husemann | Re: Compressed vnd handling tested successfully |
