Messages in this thread | | | From | Mark Rustad <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PCI: restore 2 missing pci ids | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:11:36 -0600 |
| |
Jeff,
On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: >> tree e425ac74afc0b89f3a513290a2dd5e503d974906 >> parent 654143ee3a73b2793350b039a135d9cd3101147b >> author Mark Rustad <MRustad@mac.com> Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:47:29 -0800 >> committer Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> Wed, 01 Feb 2006 >> 10:00:11 -0800 >> [PATCH] PCI: restore 2 missing pci ids >> Somewhere between 2.6.14 and 2.6.15-rc3, some PCI ids were apparently >> removed. The ecc.c module, which is not a part of the kernel.org >> tree, but >> included in some distributions, fails to compile. >> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mrustad@mac.com> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> >> include/linux/pci_ids.h | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Why was this applied? We could apply these patches all day, and > get nothing else done. If it's not in the kernel tree, we > shouldn't be worrying about it. Let the distros patch it in.
Well, I offered the patch because I found that I suddenly needed it. I did not know why the ids had been removed, but it looks to me like edac is coming right along and will need the ids itself, so I sent the patch off.
Frankly, I was surprised that the patch was so quickly accepted. I perceive some difference of opinion on how PCI ids should be handled. Is there a consensus on a better way to handle ids? Why were the ids removed in the first place? THAT was worse than wasted effort.
-- Mark Rustad, MRustad@mac.com
- 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/
| |