Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:16:39 +0100

* Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > > (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds 
> > > > for all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the 
> > > > separate netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should 
> > > > be discussed and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any 
> > > > artificial split of the lk discussion space is bad.)
> > > 
> > > but here I disagree.  LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major 
> > > subsystems need their own discussion areas.
> > 
> > That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of 
> > discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_ 
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > easier to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > by people, etc.) than it is to gobble information together from 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > various fractured sources. We learned it _again and again_ that 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > isolation of kernel discussions causes bad things.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on 
> > netdev some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had 
> > it been all on lkml we'd all be aware of it.
> 
> or had <someone> been on netdev.

countered by the underlined sentences above, just in case you missed it.

	Ingo