[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: experimental, non-production bits.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Elmer Joandi wrote:

> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > How about syslog?
> Well, I read syslog a lot at home and servers, but customer on-site
> production computer deep reconfiguration ,
> there is another paradigm - it either works 100% or I dont care.

That's nice, but I don't know anyone who could fix problems just by "it
called ufs_error() for some reason, no, I don't remember the error

> Looks from general talk here, that some kernel people should try
> servicing some customers on-site with house full of people waiting
> their stable results within 24 hours and their ass being kicked if they
> do not succeed.

WTF? BTDT, didn't put beta quality code on production boxen.

> It is a bit more generic. Just to get an automatic warning for each module
> which is marked experimental, so that I could rely on that, so I dont need to
> dig back 100 versions of source code.

??? You had explicitly enabled the code that was marked "experimental". If
the warning from make config was not enough, how the hell would runtime
warning be more useful?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.039 / U:4.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site