> Have you a guesstimate of how many of these were due just silly mistakes
> (order or padding or ...), and how many were due to real changes? From
> what I'm reading I'd say a good fraction of these are of the first kind,
> which makes us all a bit wiser and a bit clumsier...
Honestly, no, I don't know how many were due to silly "mistakes" and
how many were due to real changes. What do you define as a "real
change", anyways? I suspect that your definition and mine are
different. Besides, it's not like there is any clear statement of
what changes are really made in any particular patch.
Some of the changes that I consider "real" during the 2.0 kernels
include:
f00f patch
teardrop patch
memory leaks/crashes
Now, how many of these truly required kernel interface changes?
Honestly, I don't know. Could these problems have been 'temporarily'
fixed in a binary compatible way for 2.0 and fixed for real in 2.1?
Possibly. Could we have avoided all the back-porting of 2.1 features
into 2.0? Most certainly.
As you said, it makes us all a bit wiser; hopefully we can keep this
in mind for the remainder of the 2.2 cycle.
> Cheers,
> John
-derek
PS: Thanks for listening. :)
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH
warlord@MIT.EDU PGP key available
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/