Adrian Bunk writes:

quoted text
> > That's right.  The bug has been there basically forever (i.e. since
> > before 2.6.12-rc2 ;) and no-one has been able to trigger it reliably
> > before.
> 
> But for users this is a recent regression since 2.6.24 worked
> and 2.6.25 does not.

I never actually saw a statement to that effect (i.e. that 2.6.24
worked) from Kamalesh.  I think people assumed that because he
reported it against version X that version X-1 worked, but we don't
actually know that.

quoted text
> If this problem was on x86 Linus himself and some other core developers 
> would most likely have debugged this issue and Linus would have delayed 
> the release of 2.6.25 for getting it fixed there.

If I had been able to replicate it, or if it had been seen on more
than one machine, I would probably have asked Linus to wait while we
fixed it.  

There's a risk management thing happening here.  Delaying a release is
a negative thing in itself, since it means that users have to wait
longer for the improvements we have made.  That has to be balanced
against the negative of some users seeing a regression.  It's not an
absolute, black-and-white kind of thing.  In this case, for a bug
being seen on only one machine, of a somewhat unusual configuration, I
considered it wasn't worth asking to delay the release.

Paul.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/