Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Kumar Gala]

Please pull from 'for-2.6.27' branch of

	master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for-2.6.27

to receive the following updates:

 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8610_hpcd.dts |    8 +--
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm1.c             |   74 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

Jochen Friedrich (1):
      powerpc/cpm1: Fix race condition in CPM1 GPIO library.

Timur Tabi (1):
      powerpc: fix interrupt values for DMA2 in MPC8610 HPCD device tree

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Kumar Gala]

On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

> Please pull from 'for-2.6.27' branch of
>
> 	master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git  
> for-2.6.27
>
> to receive the following updates:
>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8610_hpcd.dts |    8 +--
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm1.c             |   74 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 
> +----------
> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> Jochen Friedrich (1):
>      powerpc/cpm1: Fix race condition in CPM1 GPIO library.
>
> Timur Tabi (1):
>      powerpc: fix interrupt values for DMA2 in MPC8610 HPCD device  
> tree

Paul, I know you are hiding out at ks, but what's going on with this  
fix? :)

- k

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Paul Mackerras]

Kumar Gala writes:

> > Jochen Friedrich (1):
> >      powerpc/cpm1: Fix race condition in CPM1 GPIO library.

This looks like a biggish change for after -rc6, and the commit
message doesn't tell me what dire things will happen if the patch
doesn't go in, or what systems see this breakage, or whether this is a
regression since 2.6.26 (I assume it isn't).  It doesn't even tell me
why not being thread-safe is a problem on a UP machine.

So... why does this fix need to go in at this stage?

Paul.

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Kumar Gala]

On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>>> Jochen Friedrich (1):
>>>     powerpc/cpm1: Fix race condition in CPM1 GPIO library.
>
> This looks like a biggish change for after -rc6, and the commit
> message doesn't tell me what dire things will happen if the patch
> doesn't go in, or what systems see this breakage, or whether this is a
> regression since 2.6.26 (I assume it isn't).  It doesn't even tell me
> why not being thread-safe is a problem on a UP machine.
>
> So... why does this fix need to go in at this stage?

We can probably hold off on that one as no one is screaming, can you  
cherry pick Timur's .dts patch as its a clear bug?

- k

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Jochen Friedrich]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Paul,

> This looks like a biggish change for after -rc6, and the commit
> message doesn't tell me what dire things will happen if the patch
> doesn't go in, or what systems see this breakage, or whether this is a
> regression since 2.6.26 (I assume it isn't).  It doesn't even tell me
> why not being thread-safe is a problem on a UP machine.

This isn't a regression since the stuff is new in 2.6.27. IMHO this can
wait until 2.6.28.

Thanks,
Jochen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBSNDcHcP9a9GOLSE6AQLqmgf+JwnbVciHzA3idXiTabS2x/k7vkBj+rUp
SIw/OHk+G3jjr/wsZaJoZbtPsChoQ5vAqKJYXFKDSadWzo90zfRgKG29PIcjm3ME
gCX3U/u31T6TdtUVSlhIxDeQuOHCpSSbDuW+++rAomAQkLmderyk997KBVUIALtY
ExsxL5YUBj0NsmQoi0wtguTR1O38/uyiB3t+74hz0E5VoDxzNQFtDCHb/MFJdt6N
OtavyY+ceCYNRmul4R1rmnRazu8Lf05p8inWsf87c7Y6dBPODlxqCIv/qOVa6AdY
8wUCzinTdCA3s1mnWjpfyHvFhFZ+QFolqZdYkYtikCEM+GOsVbKHuA==
=taK6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:29:55PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > It doesn't even tell me why not being thread-safe is a problem on a
> > UP machine.

Preemption.

> This isn't a regression since the stuff is new in 2.6.27. IMHO this can
> wait until 2.6.28.

It would be a bug in 2.6.27 that did not exist in 2.6.26...  is there
anything that used to use another mechanism that now uses this?

That's not to say that it's necessarily critical enough this late in the
process, but in general I'm not very comfortable with not being able to
fix newly added code as soon as the merge window closes because it's not
a "regression".

-Scott

Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.27'

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Scott,

>> This isn't a regression since the stuff is new in 2.6.27. IMHO this can
>> wait until 2.6.28.
> 
> It would be a bug in 2.6.27 that did not exist in 2.6.26...  is there
> anything that used to use another mechanism that now uses this?

No, GPIO support on CPM1/CPM2 is new in 2.6.27. Before, dedicated platform 
drivers were needed to drive hardware connected to an GPIO pin.

> That's not to say that it's necessarily critical enough this late in the
> process, but in general I'm not very comfortable with not being able to
> fix newly added code as soon as the merge window closes because it's not
> a "regression".

If i understood Linus correctly, this fix will have to wait for 2.6.28, but
then it can also enter the 2.6.27 stable series (like 2.6.27.1).

Thanks,
Jochen