PCI patches not being reviewed

PCI patches not being reviewed

[Matthew Wilcox]

Greg, you're merging a lot of patches that aren't going through
the linux-pci mailing list for review.  Please redirect patches that
are sent to you directly so others can also review them.

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain

Re: PCI patches not being reviewed

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:20:31AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> Greg, you're merging a lot of patches that aren't going through
> the linux-pci mailing list for review.  Please redirect patches that
> are sent to you directly so others can also review them.

I'm sorry, were there any that were recently applied that you feel
needed more review?  All major ones have been posted to linux-kernel
first, which, according to the MAINTAINERS file, is the list for pci
issues to be disccused on.  I'd be glad to change that entry, if you
think it would help out any.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: PCI patches not being reviewed

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:27:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:20:31AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 
> > Greg, you're merging a lot of patches that aren't going through
> > the linux-pci mailing list for review.  Please redirect patches that
> > are sent to you directly so others can also review them.
> 
> I'm sorry, were there any that were recently applied that you feel
> needed more review?

Yes, the PCI Express bridge driver is quite buggy.  I also think it's
the wrong approach to take -- weren't you working on a generic way to
have multiple drivers attach to the same device?

> All major ones have been posted to linux-kernel
> first, which, according to the MAINTAINERS file, is the list for pci
> issues to be disccused on.  I'd be glad to change that entry, if you
> think it would help out any.

That would certainly help; I'm not sure how anyone has time to read
linux-kernel.  Here's a patch:

Index: linux-2.6/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvs/linux-2.6/MAINTAINERS,v
retrieving revision 1.34
diff -u -p -r1.34 MAINTAINERS
--- linux-2.6/MAINTAINERS	12 Jan 2005 20:14:52 -0000	1.34
+++ linux-2.6/MAINTAINERS	18 Jan 2005 12:16:43 -0000
@@ -1745,7 +1745,7 @@ S:	Maintained
 PCI SUBSYSTEM
 P:	Greg Kroah-Hartman
 M:	greg@kroah.com
-L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
+L:	linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
 S:	Supported
 
 PCI HOTPLUG CORE

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain

Re: PCI patches not being reviewed

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:21:26PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:27:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:20:31AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > 
> > > Greg, you're merging a lot of patches that aren't going through
> > > the linux-pci mailing list for review.  Please redirect patches that
> > > are sent to you directly so others can also review them.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, were there any that were recently applied that you feel
> > needed more review?
> 
> Yes, the PCI Express bridge driver is quite buggy.

It was posted a number of times to lkml in December, and it was
commented on by a few different people, and the patch went through a few
different revisions.  It also was in the -mm tree for awhile.

> I also think it's the wrong approach to take -- weren't you working on
> a generic way to have multiple drivers attach to the same device?

That's what the patch allows to happen.  I think it's the right
approach, what do you think it should do?

> > All major ones have been posted to linux-kernel
> > first, which, according to the MAINTAINERS file, is the list for pci
> > issues to be disccused on.  I'd be glad to change that entry, if you
> > think it would help out any.
> 
> That would certainly help; I'm not sure how anyone has time to read
> linux-kernel.  Here's a patch:

Hm, in sleeping on it, I think I'll leave it, as it's worked out just
fine for me for the past 2+ years I've been the PCI maintainer, this has
been the first it has come up.  But if it really annoys you, how about
just adding another L: entry for it, so people can choose where they
want to go?

Oh, and you forgot the Signed-off-by: line :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: PCI patches not being reviewed

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:29:08AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:21:26PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Yes, the PCI Express bridge driver is quite buggy.
> 
> It was posted a number of times to lkml in December, and it was
> commented on by a few different people, and the patch went through a few
> different revisions.  It also was in the -mm tree for awhile.

But since it didn't go to the linux-pci mailing list, I never saw it.
So I never reviewed it.

> > I also think it's the wrong approach to take -- weren't you working on
> > a generic way to have multiple drivers attach to the same device?
> 
> That's what the patch allows to happen.  I think it's the right
> approach, what do you think it should do?

Ah, I thought you were talking about something for the generic device
model.  If you don't have that in mind, then a multiplexing driver is
probably the right way to do it.

> > That would certainly help; I'm not sure how anyone has time to read
> > linux-kernel.  Here's a patch:
> 
> Hm, in sleeping on it, I think I'll leave it, as it's worked out just
> fine for me for the past 2+ years I've been the PCI maintainer, this has
> been the first it has come up.

Well, no, I mentioned it to you before, you said you'd do something
about it, and nothing happened.  Hence me now talking to you in public.

> But if it really annoys you, how about
> just adding another L: entry for it, so people can choose where they
> want to go?

That doesn't make much sense.  Either you want things to be reviewed
or you don't.  If you want them reviewed, you send them to linux-pci.
Why should it be any different from linux-scsi, linux-ide, netdev or
linux-mm?

> Oh, and you forgot the Signed-off-by: line :)

Do you remember what Signed-off-by is for?

	Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0

	By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

	(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
	    indicated in the file; or

	(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
	    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
	    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
	    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
	    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
	    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
	    in the file; or

	(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
	    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
	    it.

What license is MAINTAINERS under?

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain