lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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? (
    >> http://linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2007-April/017204.html ) 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
    possible.

    --
    Michael Krufky


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-16 18:31    [W:0.036 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site