On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 09:31 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:27:23PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 08:43 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > That, and a zillion other specific wordings that people suggested fall > > > under the: > > > or some "oh, that's not good" issue > > > rule. > > > > So just to be 100% clear, no sound with 2.6.N where the sound worked > > with 2.6.N-1 absolutely does qualify. Right? > > Hm, do you think that is a "good" thing to have happen?...
OK, so it sounds like scheduling latency regressions also qualify. This could make a system that worked on 2.6.N-1 unusable on 2.6.N, and the fixes here (usually restoring a lockbreak) are almost always small and obvious. And users do report this, usualy in the form of "JACK was usable under foo kernel but I get xruns with the same config under bar kernel". Lee - 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/
