Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization.

[Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>]

* Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote:
> The threshold for "what belongs in -stable" is a) set too high and b)
> over-zealously enforced.

Do you have things you'd like to see in -stable that didn't make the
cut?

> > > 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.

Agreed.

> Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch.

Yup, if it's only part of the patch, it needs to be re-tested to be sure
something important wasn't dropped in the chop up.

> > > 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?

I agree.  The real fix only is 100% preferred, but not at the risk of
a patch that's less stable.  We've certainly asked for that as the rule
of thumb, but it is just that...a rule of thumb.