* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Fix bug noticed by Ingo of __va() wrapping on 32bit
> >
> > what you should realize is that had we applied your previous patch
> > in a rush, it would have introduced a far more serious regression
> > than the type of problem you are trying to solve. That's one of the
> > reasons why we disagree with your sense of urgency.
>
> Sense of urgency in this case just means for 2.6.25 which is still a
> few weeks away.
FYI, we had the -rc1 release 4 days ago.
> Sorry for not being a perfect being. Yes I did test the patch, but no
> my testing did not catch the problem unfortunately. But I'm grateful
> that your review caught the problem.
That's the task of the maintainers, to review, test and stage patches.
> > We've got the clean fixes queued up and it's all under testing.
> > (going fine so far)
>
> Ok but will you push them to .25?
Yes, of course, once they have been tested through - like all arch/x86
patches/fixes. If everything goes well in overnight testing it might be
pushed as early as tomorrow.
This is exactly how it was for 2.6.24: x86.git#mm is where we stage
patches while they are being tested - as you probably are well aware of.
It does not mean they are .26 material (although some of them clearly
are - such as kgdb-light) - most of the fix patches start out there, and
once we trust them we percolate them upwards in the queue and then they
eventually get submitted to Linus. If any bug happens to some of them
then they bubble back to the tail of the queue. For most of the
nontrivial patches, even if they are fixes we want to push upstream, it
is usually at least several days of testing until we trust them.
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/
