From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756633AbYBDPbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:31:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756500AbYBDPa5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:30:57 -0500 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:46355 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756465AbYBDPa4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:30:56 -0500 Message-ID: <47A72F84.8000203@garzik.org> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:30:12 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix References: <20080201231147.GA18174@suse.de> <20080202111322.GA30767@elte.hu> <47A49171.2000003@garzik.org> <20080202170828.GA12748@elte.hu> <47A4A96D.2040709@garzik.org> <20080202175738.GA26560@elte.hu> <47A4BB3C.6050709@garzik.org> <20080202193524.GC27927@elte.hu> <47A4D71F.3060009@garzik.org> <20080204125736.GA32056@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080204125736.GA32056@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.3 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> 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? >> Because, regardless of the situation, it's both common courtesy and >> wise practice to CC relevant driver maintainers, when you touch a >> driver. >> >> And it's just common sense: Greg simply does not know the intimate >> details of every PCI driver. Nor do I. Nor you. >> >> In the case of lpfc here, we have an active driver maintainer, and an >> up-to-date MAINTAINERS entry. Even if you are too slack to read >> MAINTAINERS, 'git log' would have given you the same info. >> >> Don't pretend there is some benefit here to ignoring the people that >> best know the driver. I don't buy that; it simply makes no >> engineering sense whatsoever. > > what you _STILL_ do not realize is the following: you still attribute > the lack of Cc:s to some intention of mine. No, it was not my intention. I was never speaking to intent. I was noting that, having been in the kernel community for years, both of you guys should know that you should always CC a driver author, when touching their driver. Even after this thread, I have not even heard a "yes, I agree, I should have CC'd the driver author since they know the most about the driver" from either of you, which is quite disappointing. Instead, I get this long thread in response... > is just super fragile and does not serve users at all. Even Greg and i > got it wrong accidentally. If _we_ get it wrong, who will get it Sure. But... do you agree the CC list should have included the driver author? Do you agree that a mistake was made in this case? Jeff