From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262197AbVF1WX1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:23:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262193AbVF1WWo (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:22:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:49581 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262196AbVF1WVE (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:21:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:20:37 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jean Delvare Cc: chrisw@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, jmforbes@linuxtx.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, torvalds@osdl.org, chuckw@quantumlinux.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com Subject: Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization. Message-Id: <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050628235148.4512d046.khali@linux-fr.org> References: <20050627224651.GI9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050627225349.GK9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050628235148.4512d046.khali@linux-fr.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Chris, all, > > > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > > know. > > I have. This one patch is rather big and parts of it don't seem to > belong to -stable. Can't it be simplified? More below. The threshold for "what belongs in -stable" is a) set too high and b) over-zealously enforced. > > Return to previous held-logic of calling scsi_add_host() only > > after the board has been completely initialized. > > What real bug is it supposed to fix? (I guess some, but this leading > comment should give the datails.) If that's what was in the patch which went into 2.6.13 then we should be OK with a full backport. If the person who originally raised that patch put unrelated things into a single patch then that's where the problem started. Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch. > > Also return pci_*() error-codes during probe failure paths. > > How does this belong to stable please? I don't see this fixing any > critical bug. But it's obviously safe. > > - if (ret != 0) { > > + if (ret) { > > This aint -stable material. But it's obviously safe. Let's use our brains on these patches and not become beholden to doctrine, OK?