From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>,
Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org>,
Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz@gmx.ch>,
Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice@myri.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Bauke Jan Douma <bjdouma@xs4all.nl>,
Tomasz Koprowski <tomek@koprowski.org>,
gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:47:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061210234733.GH10351@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612101438080.12500@woody.osdl.org>
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 02:39:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> >
> > > If I remember right, it breaks Chris Wedgwood's box
> >
> > I'm not bothered about 2.6.16.x anymore, feel free to do whatever is
> > needed there.
>
> That's really not the point.
>
> What's the whole _reason_ for 2.6.x.y releases?
>
> They should be safe, and OBVIOUS.
>
> If there is a box that breaks with a 2.6.x.y release, then that .y release
> was clearly a mistake, and fundamentally broke the whole point of the
> stable tree. If you can't depend on the stable tree being a real
> improvement - regardless of what hw you are on - then the stable tree has
> lost all meaning, and you'd be better off just getting 2.6.x+1 instead.
If life was that easy... ;-)
The problem is that the fix for Chris' issue went into the -stable
2.6.16.17.
So we have the following situation:
- 2.6.16 - 2.6.16.16 : problems for Chris
(and possibly many other people)
- 2.6.16.17 - 2.6.16.35 : problems for many other people
(I remember 4-5 bug reports in the kernel
Bugzilla alone)
The fix in 2.6.19 was considered suboptimal, and Alan's patch for fixing
this whole issue more properly is currently not even in your tree.
Looking at the patch description of the patch that was merged into
2.6.16.17 I got the wrong impression this was a non-critical issue on
Chris' machine, and the patch could therefore be reverted.
Now it seems the best choice is to:
- go back to the 2.6.16.35 code and
- apply commit 1ae4f9ba84b94b85d995a6ae0064b869ff15b080 from your tree
that went into 2.6.18 and fixes breakage for at least some devices and
- to perhaps revisit the situation after 2.6.20 got released
(but I'm becoming more and more inclined to fix the 2.6.16.17
regression by adding more devices to the quirk if required)
> Linus
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-10 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-07 13:24 RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16 Adrian Bunk
2006-12-07 13:53 ` Sergey Vlasov
2006-12-07 17:27 ` Bauke Jan Douma
2006-12-07 18:32 ` Sergey Vlasov
2006-12-08 15:34 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-07 14:38 ` Daniel Drake
2006-12-07 14:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-07 16:37 ` Alan Cox
2006-12-10 4:09 ` Sergio Monteiro Basto
2006-12-10 16:00 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-10 16:22 ` Daniel Drake
2006-12-10 22:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-12-10 22:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-10 22:49 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-12-11 1:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-10 23:47 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-12-11 1:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-11 12:52 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-19 6:08 ` Sergio Monteiro Basto
2006-12-11 1:42 ` Sergio Monteiro Basto
2006-12-11 12:41 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-11 12:48 ` Sergio Monteiro Basto
2006-12-11 13:01 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-07 19:54 ` Jean Delvare
2006-12-07 20:45 ` Tomek Koprowski
2006-12-08 15:42 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-08 16:11 ` RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16 (v2) Adrian Bunk
2006-12-08 21:02 ` RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16 Brice Goglin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061210234733.GH10351@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=bjdouma@xs4all.nl \
--cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=brice@myri.com \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=daniel.ritz@gmx.ch \
--cc=dsd@gentoo.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org \
--cc=tomek@koprowski.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox