Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric

Greg KH
2011-10-11T19:57:14Z

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 01:47:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> 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