* Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was nearly inevitable that something would break during untangling.
1)
So the 'chronic lack of compat, audit/noaudit and Wine testing' was certainly
avoidable.
The problem wasn't the fact that something was bound to break, but the latency
of
finding these bugs. If we cannot reduce the latency so that bugs are caught
early
enough (before they reach mainline) then we shouldn't be doing such changes.
We are slowly adding tests for that in the x86 self-tests, but IMHO we should
be
more proactive than that.
2)
Another structural problem I saw occasionally was the attempt to characterise
away
regressions.
That's a 100% no-no: if a change breaks any user-space program, it does not
matter
how 'correct' a change is, how weird the user-space dependence and how rare the
user-space program: the regression needs to be fixed either by going forward
with
a fix or by going backwards via reverting the change.
Thanks,
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/
