Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
> > you have in -mm.  We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree
> 
> Seven hours before you posted this, in 
> <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew already 
> noted it was not in -mm.
> 
> A trivial examination of the broken-out mm patches backs up the absence 
>   of Jens' block tree, too.
> 
> So let's put this myth / bad assumption to rest, shall we?

Sorry ... I just assumed from the fact that it had been in the block git
tree for six months that it was also in -mm.

> > Yes ... particularly in large trees like SCSI, there's the maintainer
> > "bugger if I don't mail it out now I don't get it in for another three
> > months" factor.
> 
> That factor always exists.  It's not confined to SCSI or large trees. 
> It's basic the nature of the merge window.  Nothing new or shocking here.
> 
> 
> > bsg had actually been sitting in the block tree since 2.6.21, so it had
> > followed the delayed merge rule ... it just seems that it didn't get
> > enough integration testing in that six months.  This is what I consider
> 
> It didn't get integration testing, at least in part, because it did not 
> hit our official pre-release tree.  Quoth Andrew:
> > I pulled git-scsi-misc on July 19 and there was no bsg code in there at
> > all.  I pulled again on July 20 and all the bsg code was in mainline.
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't disagree; my point is that bsg did follow this rule (in fact it
> 
> Evidence says otherwise.

It followed the rule of trying to stabilise outside mainline ... it just
didn't get sufficient integration testing.

> > I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured.  There
> > were just a few integration issues.
> 
> I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really 
> gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still 
> getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953).

This would be the ABI change I talked about in the previous emails.

So would this problem have been fixed simply by adding the missing block
tree to -mm?

James