[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: hung bootup with "drm/radeon/kms: move radeon KMS on/off switch out of staging."

    * Matthew Garrett <> wrote:

    > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:05:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > Regressions are not limited to 'same config' kernels, last i checked. If that
    > > has changed (or if i'm misunderstanding it) then it would be nice to hear a
    > > clarification about that from Linus.
    > If an option has *never* worked on a given configuration, then it's not a
    > regression. [...]

    The *main driver* (CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=y, as far as the user is concerned) is
    many years old and it certainly worked just fine for tens of thousands of
    test iterations on this box, up until that commit.

    That box alone has done in excess of half a million boot iterations in the
    past 2+ years. About 28% of the tests had CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=y, so the number
    of successful bootups with CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=y is in excess of one hundred
    thousand. There was not a single failed bootup in those two years due to the
    CONFIG_DRM_RADEON driver that i can remember.

    If it now does not boot up if all its sub-options are enabled, even of some
    of those sub-options are new, does that count as a driver regression? Sure it
    does to me ...

    IMHO you are trying to put a narrow technical distinction into it which does
    not exist for users. You argue that it's a new default-off sub-option of an
    existing driver, hence it cannot be a regression. The option shows up as a
    sub-option to an existing driver in make oldconfig, with a fairly innocious
    sounding help text, so to a user it certainly looks as if it's one unit and
    that it is the radeon driver that regressed.

    *If* we make a driver feature available in a popular driver and make it
    Kconfig visible without obvious warnings (i.e. lure the user to enable it
    with the notion that it's just one coherent unit with a trusted, existing
    driver), we should also hold up the other side of the deal and treat the
    *bugs* as a coherent unit as well.

    I.e. treat the driver as a coherent whole not only when it's convenient to
    us, but also when it's somewhat inconvenient to do. We cannot have it both


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-05 08:59    [W:0.022 / U:2.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site