From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756900AbZFYH3T (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:29:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753214AbZFYH3D (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:29:03 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:37440 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752789AbZFYH3B (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:29:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: don't use crs for root if we only have one root bus From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jesse Barnes , Linus Torvalds , Yinghai Lu , Gary Hade , Matthew Wilcox , Larry Finger , Andrew Morton , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20090625070347.GB2676@elte.hu> References: <20090624122433.GA24781@elte.hu> <20090624145119.GA12664@elte.hu> <4A429EBB.5010209@kernel.org> <4A42AFAC.6000300@kernel.org> <20090624163705.0389c8f0@jbarnes-g45> <20090624170114.385322df@jbarnes-g45> <20090625070347.GB2676@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:58:26 +0530 Message-Id: <1245914906.3116.66.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix bugs > > > in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since we're > > > supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate pulling > > > known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it shows > > > itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff that they > > > know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a problem. ] > > > > Yeah, 100% agreed. I didn't hear any reports until after people > > started using your tree, so I think this case was handled > > correctly: push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes > > wide open for the possibility we'd need to revert. > > There's only one small gripe i have with the handling of it: the > timing. "9e9f46c: PCI: use ACPI _CRS data by default" was written > and committed on June 11th, two days _after_ the merge window > opened. > > That's way too late for maybe-broken changes to x86 lowlevel details > (especially if it touches hw-environmental interaction - which is > very hard to test with meaningful coverage), and it's also pretty > much the worst moment to solicit testing from people who are busy > getting their stuff to Linus and who are busy testing out any of the > unexpected interactions and bugs. > > So this was, to a certain degree, a predictable outcome. Trees in > the Linux "critical path" of testing (core kernel, x86, core > networking, very common drivers, PCI, driver core, VFS, etc.) should > generally try to cool down 1-2 weeks before the merge window - > because breakage there can do a lot of knock-on cascading damage. > Two weeks is not a lot of time and the effects of showstopper bugs > get magnified disproportionately. > Yes, I was also thinking about this when I checked the commit date. And totally agree with Ingo's suggestions. Thanks, -- JSR