From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932124Ab1JKT5O (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:57:14 -0400 Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:60660 "EHLO out4.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932065Ab1JKT5M (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:57:12 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: pfnjs54RBx7MmuUMZNfhNLWp4/KZPYpqnRV9/JfjN6LJ 1318363031 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:56:11 -0600 From: Greg KH To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Benjamin LaHaise , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jon Mason , Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric Message-ID: <20111011195611.GA2956@kroah.com> References: <20111011165903.GA30976@kroah.com> <20111011165708.466042477@pistachio.kroah.org> <20111011172019.GI10838@kvack.org> <20111011192447.GC1112@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 01:47:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > >> It's not obvious that this fits the criteria for -stable > >> (Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt). > >> > >> For example, I can't tell what real problem this fixes. > > > > Yeah, it's not obvious, but I have had a lot of reports that 3.0 does > > not work on some systems without this set of patches.  Now figuring out > > of those same systems ever worked at all is getting to be quite > > difficult as I don't have access to the hardware, and the people that do > > aren't responding to test requests.  But from what I gather, 2.6.32 did > > work on these boxes, so it is a regression somehow, but I am not > > positive of this. > > I'd like to know more about this regression. It shows up as an oops that prevents the machine from booting. > > Now I'm very open to pushback, and if people really don't want these in > > (i.e. the PCI maintainer(s) say no), then I'll drop them and work with > > the distros to get them into their trees so that their customers's > > systems will work properly. > > If distros want these patches, does that mean they have bug reports? > URLs to them would be helpful. All of the ones I have are "private" at the moment due to the hardware and product being tested by the users, sorry. I really wish that some of the people who had this problem would post publically, and I guess we could just say, because they aren't being public about it, it shouldn't go into a stable tree. And I don't have a problem with that. > I just haven't seen any concrete information that says -stable will be > better off if it includes these patches. We've tripped over enough > problems upstream that I'm concerned they might make things worse > rather than better. Even though it is disabled by default? thanks, greg k-h