From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760599AbXEVWBU (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 18:01:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765530AbXEVWA5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 18:00:57 -0400 Received: from 216-99-217-87.dsl.aracnet.com ([216.99.217.87]:32976 "EHLO sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764324AbXEVWA4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 18:00:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:00:44 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Greg KH Cc: Jeff Garzik , Chuck Ebbert , linux-kernel , Chris Wright Subject: Re: [stable] Wanted: Allow adding new device IDs during the -stable cycle Message-ID: <20070522220044.GB3429@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <46533314.10206@redhat.com> <20070522184733.GA9357@kroah.com> <46533EA8.7020602@garzik.org> <20070522193538.GA885@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070522193538.GA885@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Greg KH (greg@kroah.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:04:08PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Really, it is just silly to think that one-line PCI IDs patches will cause > > any harm at all, and it should be self-evident that there is clear potential > > to HELP Linux users. That's why we're all here, right? Yes, we're here to help. The only compelling reasons not do to it were/are: 1) -stable has never been about adding features (easy to consider new hardware support a feature). 2) In theory new hardware can seem to work with a simple PCI ID update, and later we find it needs extra quirk handling or specific driver support. This could mean adding buggy support for new hardware to -stable. In practice, hopefully this isn't a real issue. 3) It hasn't been a pressing issue brought to our attention until this thread and its predecessor earlier in the month. My own personal experience is each time I've needed a PCI ID update for new hardware it's also needed changes to the driver (read: e1000, every single time). So from my perspective neither sysfs nor relaxing -stable rules slightly would actually help provide support for new hardware, but that's clearly limited experience. > I'm not disagreeing that it will help a set of users, or that it will > cause any harm at all. It's just currently outside the scope for what > we defined -stable as, and it will slightly increase the workload that > Chris and I have in keeping up with these patches. > > So, if there is an overwhelming majority of people that strongly feel > that this is a good thing, fine, we can try it out. Yes, if it will serve -stable users better, we can give it a trial run to see how it goes. thanks, -chris