Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-12-03T20:28:17Z

On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:11:19 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 12/03/2009 02:45 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 December 2009 06:53:59 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2009 07:39 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:07:41 am Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>>> The merge window is upon us, which by strict rules means that anything
> >>>> not already in libata-dev.git#upstream needs to wait until 2.6.34.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, bug fixes and the like should definitely be in 2.6.33.
> >>>> ->init_host is definitely 2.6.34 material. Some of the other stuff
> >>>> could go either way.
> >>
> >>> If you would like to apply some of my patches to 2.6.33 you are more than
> >>> welcome to do it. I can even prepare separate git tree with specific changes
> >>> to make it easier for you once you tell me which changes you would like to
> >>> see in it.
> >>
> >> OK, great.
> >>
> >> Can you prepare a patchset containing only fixes? Comment-only changes
> >> are acceptable too. Trivial changes too, if they are extremely trivial :)
> >>
> >> Include nothing that adds features, removes or unifies drivers, etc.
> >
> > Since this is pretty high-level description and some changes fall into
> > many categories at once (i.e. addition of proper PCI Power Management
> > handling could be considered both as a fix and as a feature) I prepared
> > a rather conservative set of changes (which means that unfortunately
> > it misses many enhancements available in my tree):
> >
> >> Please do it in standard kernel submit form, which is either
> >> (a) repost the patches (yes, again) being submitted for 2.6.33, or
> >> (b) a standard git pull request, which includes shortlog, diffstat, and
> >> all-in-one diff.
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed explanation of the standard kernel submit
> > form (I wonder how would I know this otherwise :) but the thing is that
> > at the current moment I'm not submitting anything to the upstream.
>
> Ok, that explains my confusion, then. I had thought you intended to get
> this stuff upstream, and into users' hands.

Interesting argument but the vast majority of users use distribution kernels
which are not upstream and I doubt that any self-respecting distribution would
miss such amount of fixes.

The rest can easily use my tree which follows upstream closely and can be
obtained using a single line git command.

> > That's it. While this may sound strange to some people it turns out
> > that in practice it is much less hassle for me personally to keep some
> > of trees outside of the (sometimes greatly overrated) upstream.
> >
> > If knowing the above you still would like to include the aforementioned
> > set of changes in your libata-dev tree they are at kernel.org now.
>
> I will go through this batch and cherry-pick. The build fix is already
> in my tree. Existing kernel practice (and previous comments) indicate
> that lists of known issues do not belong in Kconfig. Will take a look
> at the other stuff...

Well, you were aware that they were not dropped so you could have easily told
me that you specifically don't want this patches in the for-2.6.33 tree..

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz