Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:

>> so i'm still totally befuddled why you think that there was anything 
>> particularly wrong or unhelpful about me replying to the specific 
>> pull request that introduced a particular breakage into the kernel. 
>> Had i mailed to lkml with a terse "kernel build broke" message with 
>> just an URL to a config and the build breakage, you could rightfully 
>> have complained that i should have done more to properly direct my 
>> bugreport. But this breakage was about a PCI API change, the pull 
>> request had a PCI mailing list Cc:-ed, why should i have thought that 
>> this needs the attention of any other parties?
>
> Because the change required knowledge not only of PCI, but of the 
> hardware in question.  As your patch demonstrated.
>
> And yes -- the original changes should have been CC'd to interested 
> parties as well.  I'm still waiting to hear back from Alan or Bart 
> whether the ATA/IDE changes in that PCI pile actually work...  the 
> original changeset even noted that relevant parties had not yet been 
> queried.

so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your 
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it every 
minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a largely 
outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3 maintainers and 
3 mailing lists in the Cc: were somehow not enough and that i was 
supposed to grow the already sizable Cc: list even more?

	Ingo