On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:31:01 +0100, Stefan Richter said:Beats me - I don't see it on an 'lspci' ;) But I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a 'powerpc' in it, so those threads get *totally* skipped... My point was "personal interest in the domain" may not be a great way to tell if a given thread has a stability risk - but I suspect that for the vast majority of testers like myself who aren't paid to be kernel hackers, if it isn't something they can trip over on the one or two machines they can easily test on, it isn't code they're going to review.... (Note that it extends past just hardware too - my config has selinux in it, so those threads at least *might* get looked at. cpusets or ocfs2? If I read those threads, it's probably by accident... :)
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 008/196] Chinese: add translation of volatile-considered-harmful.txt |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Alex Chiang | [PATCH 1/4] Remove path attribute from sgi_hotplug |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Eric Dumazet | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU |
