[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] [GIT PATCHES] V4L/DVB updates
CIJOML wrote:
> Dne pondělí 16 duben 2007 17:34 Michael Krufky napsal(a):
>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:33:38PM -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
>>>> Mauro,
>>>> I've been out of town for the past few days... I just got home and saw
>>>> this:
>>>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>> - Fix 1/3 for bug 7819: fixed frontend hotplug issue
>>>>> - Fix 2/3 for bug 7819: demux and dvr
>>>>> - Fix 3/3 for bug 7819: fixed hotplugging for dvbnet
>>>> I don't think that this is 2.6.21 material. These patches have not yet
>>>> received
>>>> enough testing to be sent to mainline.
>>>> I have tested them, and they seem to work for my cxusb device, but we
>>>> have yet to hear test results from users of usb dvb devices that do not
>>>> use the dvb-usb framework. (ttusb, flexcop-usb, cinergyT2, for example)
>>>> The bug that these patches fix has been around throughout the entire
>>>> kernel history of the dvb subsystem. The bug is not a regression -- it
>>>> has always been
>>>> there. In my opinion, it is too late in 2.6.21 development to apply
>>>> this change.
>>>> Because these fixes are not obvious, I think we should let them get some
>>>> more testing, and have them queued for 2.6.22 .
>>> Unless I misunderstand anything, this should fix [1].
>>> And this is a bug that was reported to be present in 2.6.21-rc but not
>>> in 2.6.20 (and it's therefore a regression, no matter whether the
>>> underlying problem was older and only exposed by some other change).
>> Not true. The DVB subsystem has NEVER been hot-unpluggable. I confirm
>> that the patches SEEM to be correct, but this has not yet been verified.
>> None of the authors of dvb-core gave their ACK on these changesets.
>> The DVB hotplug issue has been around since the very beginning. I assure
>> you, that I consider this fix to be very important, and I really would love
>> to see it hit mainline. However, given the situation, it is not
>> appropriate to push these in during -rc7
>> I have doubts on CIJOML's testing method -- there is no way he could have
>> unplugged the device while in use, while running 2.6.20.y and not receive
>> an OOPS. CIJOML, please see the bottom of this email for
>> Sure, this will prevent an OOPS on some, and hopefully all devices... but
>> what if it causes a regression for those untested?
>> Why do we have a merge window, if new changesets are going to be rushed
>> into late -rc kernels without proper testing, and without the ack of a dvb
>> subsystem maintainer?
>> Are we prepared to go for another -rc and 3 or 4 weeks of testing to
>> confirm that this fix doesn't cause new regressions? I don't think so.
>> Markus Rechberger wrote:
>>> The patch has been around on the dvb mailinglist ([PATCH][RFC] DVB
>>> Hotplug Fix, 5. April 2007),
>> The patch was merged into the development repository at the same time the
>> pull request was issued to Linus. This has NOT been tested on a wide
>> scale. It should go to -mm for a while before being merged to mainline.
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> I also explicitly warned at DVB ML that I were about to send this patch,
>>> together with other fixes, asking the community for more tests. After
>>> that, I received two positive answers on my mailbox from people that
>>> tested and noticed that this really fixed the issue.
>> One of those positive answers was me - I explained that it worked for me,
>> but we need others to test.
>> You waited ONE DAY after sending this "warning" to the dvb mailing list? (
>> ) I saw that
>> email after seeing the pull request to Linus. We dont have users testing
>> the repositories after each commit -- you _really_ need to give some more
>> time to allow for such testing.
>> CIJOML wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have tested these patches with:
>>> Freecom DVB-T dongle
>>> Pluto2 pcmcia card
>>> Leadtek WinFast DTV dongle 1st generation
>>> Leadtek WinFast DTV dongle 2nd generation
>>> These are 4 different devices with 4 different hw and modules.
>>> All works. Please apply.
>> Well, that helps... But it would still be nice to hear test results on a
>> CinergyT2 or flexcop-usb.
>> Which driver supports those Winfast dongles? We already know for sure that
>> the patches work correctly for any driver based on the dvb-usb framework.
>> If you had the device open, and then disconnect it from the usb bus, no
>> matter what kernel version you're running, you should hit the OOPS. I
>> confirm that these patches prevent that OOPS from occurring, but I have
>> trouble believing that you did NOT experience such an OOPS in 2.6.20.y
>> Could you please describe the method in which your test caused an OOPS
>> using 2.6.21-rc and did NOT cause an oops in 2.6.20.y ?
> Hi,
> I have tested these patches with 2.6.20-mh1 + v4l-dvb-b5be3479f070 patchset.
> I also tried 2.6.21-rc6 + v4l-dvb-b5be3479f070 patchset and this combination
> also works without OOPS.
Yes, that shows that the changesets prevent the oops, but it says
nothing about vanilla 2.6.20.y
> Winfast dongles are both dvb-usb based (DiBcom 3000M-C and DiBcom DiB7000P),
> but pluto2 is cardbus (pci) based.
just as I figured. The pluto2 test results are great to hear, though --
thank you.
> I think we can include these patches into 2.6.21 and if we receive any
> problem, we still have 2.6.21.Z for fixing, don't we?

The stable kernel series is not there for that purpose. It is not there
to encourage a rush of patches into a final kernel release, only to
cause potential problems, with the 2.6.x.y series as a fallback for
fixes. We should avoid the need for such last-minute fixes wherever

Michael Krufky

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-16 18:31    [W:0.119 / U:18.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site