Messages in this thread |  | | From | Richard Henderson <> | Subject | Re: too much untested code in new kernels | Date | Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:34:59 -0600 (CST) |
| |
> Finally I would like to address the argument 'go run 2.0.XX if you want > a stable kernel'. I don't need a stable kernel. But I do want a kernel > where ALL code gets tested at least ONCE by the people who write it > BEFORE they hand it to Linus. > > Is that asking too much?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Two of your examples I have opinions on.
1) The basic module code as seen in 2.1.18 _did_ work on the Alpha. As it turned out, several of the i386 patches I made to the wrong development tree so they got lost, but...
As for its inclusion in 2.1.18, perhaps I should have been more clear for Linus' time-stressed benefit in my snapshot message to him, Jacques, Miguel, and Andreas that the tools to use the kernel patches wern't ready for prime time. I don't fault him for that though, as I did mention that there were generic bug fixes in there that should be incorporated now, and I didn't split them out.
2) How can you protect against munged patches, as affected the watchdog driver? When they are noticed, they'll get fixed, but they must be noticed.
I discovered for myself while trying to build all of the drivers to determine how they were affected by the module patches that it is virtually impossible to build a kernel with _everything_, because some drivers require parameter knowledge to even build that I don't have. Or two drivers that are not modules are mutually exclusive.
Therefore we must rely on the users of those drivers to speak up and say the drivers are broken.
r~
|  |