On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:38:46AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > It's not about us removing the code, it's about us having an accurate > compliance test. There are two reasons for having a fully correct > compliance test > > 1. Our work arounds have unintended consequences which have knock > on effects which mean that you don't know if a test failure is > real or an unintended consequence of a work around.
It doesn't matter. If a platform is supposed to run Linux 3.6 then it has to run Linux 3.6 regardless of whether or not the failure is due to a firmware bug or a bug in the kernel. The platform vendor will be obliged to fix it in the firmware no matter what the test suite says. > 2. New features in specs tend to build on previous features, so > we're going to have a hard time constructing accurate tests for > layered features where we've done a work around for the base > feature. Which is easily rectified if the specification is modified to describe reality instead. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
