Re: Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

[Keith Packard]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:55:48 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I know I sound like a broken record but I really wish you i915 devs were 
> little more eager to revert broken patches early rather than late. I mean, 
> this particular breakage was already bisected but nobody said or 
> did anything - and it's not like it's the first time either!

We've switched processes starting with 2.6.39 and I think we're doing
better in this regard. For this particular issue, the regression came
with 2.6.38, and the revert was too large for me to consider merging
just before 3.0 shipped -- I knew reverting it *would* cause problems
for anyone using UMS on newer hardware.

> I suppose I need to bribe Linus somehow to be more strict with you
> folks.

He nicely delivered the message for you a few months ago in person.

In any case, I'm hoping that my smaller fix will resolve the problem and
also not cause regressions for other users.

-- 
keith.packard@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature