From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] target refcounting infrastructure fixes for usb Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 00:20:08 +0100 Message-ID: <52C745A8.6060608@redhat.com> References: <20131220231810.GA2835@xanatos> <20140103004551.GA2970@xanatos> <52C67B4D.9060101@redhat.com> <20140103220041.GC4193@xanatos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11520 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753852AbaACXUQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 18:20:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140103220041.GC4193@xanatos> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Sarah Sharp , Greg KH Cc: Alan Stern , James Bottomley , linux-scsi , USB list Hi, On 01/03/2014 11:00 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 09:56:45AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 01/03/2014 01:45 AM, Sarah Sharp wrote: >>> Ok, Alan's additional patch fixed the warnings I was seeing on UAS >>> device unplug. James, can you Cc me on the finished patch when you send >>> it in? >>> >>> Hans, I don't want to send the UAS patches off to Greg until James' >>> patches get into mainline. I believe Greg's usb-next tree is frozen at >>> this point, so they'll have to wait until 3.15. >> >> Ugh, I must say I'm rather unhappy about this, waiting till 3.14 to give >> time to shake things out was fine. But since the start of the 3.13 cycle, >> there have been no issues found in the xhci / uas code. > > I completely understand why you're unhappy. I agree that the pull > request you sent me on Nov 18th is fine (aside from not being a GPG > signed git tag). [1] I also agree that the UAS and xHCI driver changes > have been stable during my testing, other than triggering the SCSI oops > on UAS disconnect. > >> Yes it triggered an existing problem in another subsys, but the code itself >> has been issue free all this time. If Greg's tree is indeed already frozen I >> would rather have us asking an exception for this. > > Detach yourself emotionally from your code and look at this request from > a maintainer's perspective. > > You're asking me to push 69 patches to Greg after -rc6 is out, for a > driver that's been marked broken for several kernel releases (uas). The > patches enable a feature that's been basically untested across all xHCI > host controllers (streams), and they add new userspace API for usbfs to> > expose streams. Yes 69 patches which have been ready since November 18. Your argument is that they were not in linux-next before now, my unhappiness comes from that they could have been in linux-next for some time now already. > In the meantime, there's a big push to get code into linux-next at least > a week or two before the merge window opens. I sent my last pull request > on Dec 20th, and Felipe closed his USB gadget tree on Dec 26th. I had > hoped to get the SCSI issue settled so I could send in the UAS patches > on the 20th, but that didn't happen. My tree is closed. > > These fixes should get merged (and will!), but I will not ask Greg for > an exception to get these patches into 3.14. > >> Alternatively we could add all of it to 3.14 except for the patch removing >> the BROKEN marking from uas. Or at least all the non uas bits, which are >> useful to have by themselves. > > I think the best way to proceed with this is for me to queue all the > xHCI patches in that pull request for usb-next once 3.14-rc1 is out, and > then you send a separate pull request to Greg. You're going to need to > be able to send him pull requests with a signed git tag in the future > anyway. Since you have all the patches in your tree now anyways I believe it would be best if you just send a pull-req for all of them. I see little value in me sending a separate pull-req for the uas patches. As discussed before I'm fine with picking up uas maintenance from then on. Regards, Hans