Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:23:26 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [RFC: 2.6.19 patch] let PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE depend on BROKEN |
| |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:07:48AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:11:31PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:28:38 -0700 > > Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:58 -0600 > > > Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 03:02:52AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE is an interesting feature, but in it's current > > > > > state it seems to be more of a trap for users who accidentally > > > > > enable it. > > > > > > > > > > This patch lets PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE depend on BROKEN for 2.6.19. > > > > > > > > > > The intention is to get this patch reversed in -mm as soon as it's in > > > > > Linus' tree, and reverse it for 2.6.20 or 2.6.21 after the fallout of > > > > > in-kernel problems PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE causes got fixed. > > > > > > > > People who enable features clearly marked as EXPERIMENTAL deserve what > > > > they get, IMO. > > > > > > It's not the impact on "people" which is of concern - it's the impact on > > > kernel developers - specifically those who spend time looking at bug > > > reports :( > > > > Either it is broken and should be removed, or is barely working and > > should be fixed. If Greg wants to take bug reports then it can stay. > > I want to keep taking bug reports. > > I've found only 1 real bug from all of this. The pci MSI initialization > issue. It's on my queue of things to fix. Andrew has also sent me > another "interesting" patch about making sure devices are found by the > time we hit another init level which I'll see about adding too. > > But that MSI bug was a real bug, which is good to have found. It's also > found other real bugs in other subsystems that could easily be hit by > other users. > > So no, this should not be marked BROKEN. > > It's a very experimental feature, as the help text says. If you can > think of any harsher language to put in that text, please let me know.
The problem is that if only 1 out of 100 people who are compiling a kernel accidentally enable this option, linux-kernel will be swamped with bug reports...
If it shouldn't be enabled by users, the only correct language is a dependency on BROKEN.
And it doesn't matter whether PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE itself is buggy or whether it only exposes latent bugs in other subsystems - the effect is the same.
> And yes, there also has been a proposed change to the driver core to fix > up how the multi-thread stuff works that looks very good, but it's down > in my queue that I'm trying to catch up on right now. > > So consider this a NAK for this change. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |