Re: Happy New Year (and v2.6.20-rc3 released)

Jeff Garzik
2007-01-01T20:50:05Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Jeff,
> what was the resolution to this one? Just revert the offending commit, or
> what?
>
> We're about five weeks into the 2.6.20-rc series. I was hoping for a
> two-month release rather than the usual dragged-out three months, so I'd
> like to get these regressions to be actively fixed. By forcible reverts if
> that is what it takes.

Data points:

* I was unable to argue against Alan's logic behind
368c73d4f689dae0807d0a2aa74c61fd2b9b075f but I just don't like it.
Regardless of whether or not this truly reflects how the PCI device is
wired, it makes pci_request_regions() and similar resource handling code
behave differently.

* Alan's 368c73d4f689dae0807d0a2aa74c61fd2b9b075f change was IMO
incomplete, because he obviously did not fix all the breakage it caused

* Alan proposed a libata fix patch. I noted two key breakages in his
fix patch, one of which Alan agreed was a problem.

* Outside of the two bugfix pushes, I've been actively avoiding
computers during the holidays. It's a shocking concept I'm trying with
the new wife :) Don't expect anything useful from me until Jan 4th or so.

* This affects a lot of Intel ICH platforms in legacy/combined mode, so
it's definitely high on my post-holiday priority list. If the patch is
not reverted, then I'll definitely fix it sooner rather than later.

* For 2.6.21, I proposed to yank out all the ugly combined mode hacks
(grep for '____request_resource'), which should make Alan's change a bit
easier... but nonetheless stirs the IDE quirks code again.

* I am lazy and would rather not touch the fragile ata_pci_init_one()
code now /and/ in 2.6.21.

So I vote for revert, for 2.6.20, but I know Alan will squawk loudly.
Also NOTE thoughfb0f2b40faff41f03acaa2ee6e6231fc96ca497c which fixes
fallout from Alan's change, too.

Jeff