Patches from ARM folks solicited for the -stable tree

Paul Walmsley paul at pwsan.com
Thu Nov 21 17:15:37 EST 2013


On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:20:29PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:43:37AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > >
> > > > These days it seems like I have about one patch per merge window that 
> > > > could be a stable candidate.
> > > 
> > > That's all?
> > 
> > The better we are at writing and testing our patches, the fewer -stable 
> > candidates we'll have :-)  
> 
> No new device ids? quirks? 

It's true that the focus here for -stable has mostly been for fixes for 
code that causes some kind of crash or failure, rather than new device 
support.  Including new device support could probably increase the amount 
of -stable patches by quite a bit.  The problem with this is that it could 
cause hard-to-find regressions in the -stable kernel.  For example, on 
OMAP, adding support for a new device could potentially cause PM 
regressions on the rest of the system, depending on how the driver 
operates.  So the bar for those types of patches seems pretty high if it's 
really intended to be a "stable" kernel.

> And if you aren't finding bugs in your code, then no one's using it :)

Yeah that's probably increasingly an issue for the older OMAP platforms 
these days.


- Paul



More information about the arm-platform-maintainers mailing list