On Ät 10-03-05 13:25:19, Lee Revell wrote:
> 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".
No, I do not think we want to extend it that far. Latency regression
is more of "oh, who cares" issue ;-).
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/
