From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752538AbZFWAZM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:25:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751955AbZFWAY6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:58 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com ([209.85.218.213]:34873 "EHLO mail-bw0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751542AbZFWAY5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; b=MbxtEYZKz4mq+UNPSyKfkbbcRIPxJeK16nhFJ1Vka/4c/PECKj6fV3/qwJpcrIDOa/ I8TxDEpyYJNGhE7wJ7jMQbeE8n71paJYlayvZtrKVCA1vEYsp9tXfw2eysc0btgbwzgA z0w6PwApu+Zj6D3wpK/Hu23Y35KwNDIVMR0r8= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:30:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.30-next-20090619-10934-gace1e80-dirty; KDE/4.2.3; i686; ; ) Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200906221348.02632.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20090622.163136.246300819.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20090622.163136.246300819.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906230230.14074.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:31:36 David Miller wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:48:02 +0200 > > > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > Subject: [PATCH] cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > --- > > This is obviously correct regression fix. The only problem is that > > it cannot be applied under the new rigid policy before somebody with > > the hardware verifies it. This will only result in a needless delay > > in this case (IMHO a common sense works better than rigid policies). > > Such hard rules don't apply to regression fixes. Patch > applied, thanks. > > But I certainly would have required some positive testing for the > commit which introduced this problem! You can from now on. > I've added some verbosity to the commit message, so that people can > track where the problem was introduced, and exactly how this problem > arose, like so: > > cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port > This fixes a regression introduced by commit > 86ccf37c6acd74cf7e4b7751ee045de19943c5a0 ("ide: remove pciirq argument > from ide_pci_setup_ports()") > > ide_pci_setup_ports() would loop over the available ports, one > by one, recording IRQ numbers increasingly from the one passed > in as "pciirq". The conversion only assigned the initial port's > IRQ, 14, but left the second one not setup. > > [ Make commit message more verbose -DaveM ] I didn't remember which commit was it so I didn't include it in the patch description. This is certainly not the commit above (if you're making such, changes please make sure that you actually understand the code -- you have it easy now as it is orders of magnitude simpler than it was few years ago). Looking a bit more in depth it could be that it was never a regression and I'm no longer sure that the change is correct (sorry for that, I was blinded by code in pata_cs5520.c). > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller