* Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
