From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261168AbVF1Wf7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:35:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262210AbVF1Wf5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:35:57 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:61395 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261168AbVF1Wcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:32:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:32:15 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jean Delvare , torvalds@osdl.org, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, tytso@mit.edu, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, jmforbes@linuxtx.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, chuckw@quantumlinux.com, stable@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [stable] Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization. Message-ID: <20050628223215.GA16048@kroah.com> References: <20050627224651.GI9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050627225349.GK9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050628235148.4512d046.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:20:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. Hm, are there patches that have been submitted to stable@ that have been rejected for "over-zealous" enforcement? I can't think of any ones recently. > > > 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. I agree. That's why I don't have a problem with this patch, it's better to stay inline with upstream (meaning 2.6.12-git) than diverging. Makes my life easier when I try to figure out if stuff needs to be merged to Linus :) thanks, greg k-h