* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:51:17 +0200
>
> > i also offered to quickly try any test-version of the fixed patch, so
> > there's a real and deterministic path towards fixing the patch. The
> > regression is obvious and triggers all the time.
>
> For you.
I can certainly keep the revert around in my trees. (although it's a
complication, i have to take care for it to never leak out into any
external trees, etc. - but it's not a big issue)
Fundamentally, i trust Olaf to fix this quickly, and i dont want to make
a too big fuss about this, but in general it's always better to revert
patches causing known regressions (unless the revert is hugely complex
and other changes depend on it - but this isnt the case here). I can
also run whatever test-patches of Olaf, that would instrument/dump
whatever info is needed to fix this. So Olaf's debugging effort is not
hindered in any way as far as i can see.
I think if you leaned back and thought it through, and if you applied
this scenario to a bad scheduler commit from me that broke your box,
you'd readily agree with me =B-) (which scenario is purely hypothetical,
my scheduler commits are all 100% perfect of course ;-)
Ingo
-
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/
