From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751722AbXCXAd7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:33:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751913AbXCXAd7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:33:59 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48898 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751722AbXCXAd6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:33:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:28:02 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "Williams, Mitch A" Cc: "Kok, Auke-jan H" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, "Ronciak, John" , "Brandeburg, Jesse" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20.3] Flush writes to MSI-X table Message-ID: <20070324002802.GA18061@suse.de> References: <20070323222207.GB22500@suse.de> <08FE5CC30C9A3F41BF819A502CF7BF6EF55DD2@fmsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08FE5CC30C9A3F41BF819A502CF7BF6EF55DD2@fmsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21 > >release cycle to expect to get this in for that kernel. How about > >waiting for 2.6.22 and if it's a big deal, getting it into the > >2.6.21-stable tree if needed. > > > >So far I have not seen any bug reports that this patch would fix, have > >you? > > Well, I've seen several bug reports on this issue -- but they're all > internal to Intel. > > However, we do have here a real bug, which shows up on real hardware, > which will be released soon. Obviously, I can't discuss release > schedules, but "soon" is a good word to use. You might find out more if > you read The Register (wink, wink). Ok, but again, as this is something that no one outside of a company can see, it doesn't really make sense to rush it into the kernel. > Given the time frame for release of 2.6.21, I'd be fine with skipping > 2.6.20.x, and putting this in 2.6.21. But we really don't want to wait > for 2.6.22. I think it needs to wait, especially given that there is no public hardware yet. I'll add this to my queue. thanks, greg k-h