[BUG] New Kernel Bugs

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:40:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > Do you believe that our response to bug reports is adequate?
> > > 
> > > Do you feel that making us feel and look like shit helps?
> > 
> > That doesn't answer my question.
> > 
> > See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem.  If we do 
> > this, then we can then have a think about what to do about it.
> > 
> > I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I 
> > resoundingly failed.  People seemed to think that we're doing OK.

We were a minority.

> > But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief.
> > 
> > This is not a minor matter.  If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating 
> > then this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening 
> > for a number of years.  By that stage there will be so much work to do 
> > to get us back to an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort.  
> > And it will take a long time after that for the kerel to get its 
> > reputation back.
> > 
> > So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is 
> > happening.
> 

[agree with most of Ingo's moaning]

> (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds for 
> all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the separate 
> netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should be discussed 
> and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any artificial split 
> of the lk discussion space is bad.)

but here I disagree.  LKML is already too busy and noisy.
Major subsystems need their own discussion areas.

---
~Randy