Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:30:12 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization. |
| |
* Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote: > The threshold for "what belongs in -stable" is a) set too high and b) > over-zealously enforced.
Do you have things you'd like to see in -stable that didn't make the cut?
> > > Return to previous held-logic of calling scsi_add_host() only > > > after the board has been completely initialized. > > > > What real bug is it supposed to fix? (I guess some, but this leading > > comment should give the datails.) > > If that's what was in the patch which went into 2.6.13 then we should be OK > with a full backport. If the person who originally raised that patch put > unrelated things into a single patch then that's where the problem started.
Agreed.
> Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch.
Yup, if it's only part of the patch, it needs to be re-tested to be sure something important wasn't dropped in the chop up.
> > > Also return pci_*() error-codes during probe failure paths. > > > > How does this belong to stable please? I don't see this fixing any > > critical bug. > > But it's obviously safe. > > > > - if (ret != 0) { > > > + if (ret) { > > > > This aint -stable material. > > But it's obviously safe. Let's use our brains on these patches and not > become beholden to doctrine, OK?
I agree. The real fix only is 100% preferred, but not at the risk of a patch that's less stable. We've certainly asked for that as the rule of thumb, but it is just that...a rule of thumb. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |