Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

Jeff Garzik
2009-12-03T20:11:17Z

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.

> 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...

Thanks,

Jeff