[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
    On 04/16/2012 02:50 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Greg KH<> wrote:
    >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH<> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH<> wrote:
    >>>>>> Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
    >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >>>>>>> v3.3.x on the other hand are *not* stable. They contain patches
    >>>>>>> backported from v3.4, but nobody guarantees they will work. There was
    >>>>>>> no v3.3.1-rc1, so the first time the patches compromising v3.3.1 were
    >>>>>>> generally tested together is in v3.3.1, at which point if somebody
    >>>>>>> finds issues, it's too late; bad patches are *not* going to be removed
    >>>>>>> in v3.3.2.
    >>>>>> Of course there was a 3.3.1-rc1, see the linux-kernel archives for the
    >>>>>> announcemen and the individual patches. has the large patch
    >>>>>> itself if you like that format instead.
    >>>>> I don't see it here:
    >>>>> If you really want people to try it, why not tag it?
    >>>> That would be because I don't keep it in that tree. It is in a quilt
    >>>> tree you can find in the stable-queue.git repo, and I have never tagged
    >>>> -rc1 releases there. No one has ever asked for it before, so in the
    >>>> past 6 years of stable releases, I guess no one ever needed it.
    >>>> ketchup and tarballs seem to work well for others, perhaps you can use
    >>>> that as well (hint, ketchup on top of the linux-stable tree works just
    >>>> fine for testing this.)
    >>> Perhaps the current process will be continue to be OK, but I do
    >>> believe a tagged v3.3.1-rc1 would have catched the ath9k issue.
    >> How exactly would that have helped here?
    > More people would have given it a try. Not that many people read the
    > mailing list, and the ones that do certainly might want to avoid
    > applying a big series of patches; even if their mail client makes it
    > easy (mine (Gmail) doesn't). A tag, and an announcement to give a try
    > would make it *much* easier.
    >> You point out:
    >>> I used to compile my own kernels and use your stable tree, but this a
    >>> new laptop and I was using Arch Linux which automatically updated to
    >>> v3.3.1, and with no network I had no way to revert to v3.2.x.
    >>> Fortunately I had the kernel sources available, but I wonder how many
    >>> people were completely stuck.
    >> Arch wouldn't have included a -rc in their kernel (unless they are
    >> crazy), so this would not have helped your situation at all.
    > There's *a lot* of people that got affected by the 3.3.1 release; we
    > don't need to break a lot of boxes to figure out there's an issue,
    > only a few would suffice, even one.
    >>> If some other 3.x.1 release get broken this way, I would seriously
    >>> consider tagging v3.x.1-rc1 as well. It works for Linus' tree.
    >> "this way" was for a very tiny subset of hardware, so odds are, if this
    >> happens again, it wouldn't be caught this way either. That subset just
    >> happened to show up in your machine, but, for example, not in the wide
    >> range of hardware I test with here, nor the machines that others test
    >> with.
    > It was certainly not just me. I have seen a lot of people mentioning
    > "their wifi is broken", a lot of them using Arch Linux,
    > coincidentally.

    Because it was only "tested" through the mailing list on Arch-general.
    Like I stated your issue was related to you and not understanding Arch
    AND how that kernel was tested before being pushed to the repo's

    > These issues would most likely not be caught before v3.x.1, and which
    > point it's too late, they cannot be reverted to v3.x.2 just like that;
    > they have to wait for upstream. Hopefully and probably everything
    > would go smooth like this time, but maybe not, we'll have to wait and
    > see. With more people using Arch Linux and thus the latest "stable"
    > release, I'd say we might see an increase in these kinds of issues.
    > Cheers.

    Learn the distro you are using better.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-16 23:57    [W:0.028 / U:27.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site