lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> Are you seriously telling us that it required too much investigation
> on your part to figure out that something with a compile failure in
> drivers/scsi might belong on the scsi list?

This is getting silly. Let me repeat it, because IMO it's really
straightforward. My (quick) investigation based on the function name
that was in the error message:

drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:1897: error: implicit declaration
of function 'pci_enable_device_bars'

a straightforward search on "pci_enable_device_bars" led to a recent PCI
API related change pushed by Greg, with the following straightforward
subject line:

[GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.24

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/1/483

the email had this description:

| Some general cleanups, minor tweaks, and a bit of PCI hotplug
| updates, and some PCI Express updates for new features, if your
| hardware happens to support it.

furthermore, the mail already had two PCI mailing lists in its Cc: line.
The PCI subsystem regularly does cross-treee changes, by its nature.

i had all reasons to believe that this was a (innocious looking) PCI
subsystem change and a harmless (but a tad under-tested) API cleanup
that went haywire: it smelled like PCI, it walked like PCI and it
quacked like PCI.

So to me it was clearly a PCI merge not an SCSI merge, and i was really
only interested in the first hop, i.e. i was primarily interested in the
pull request that clearly changed multiple subsystems, and a seemingly
API change that broke the build.

Three mailing lists and three maintainers were already on the Cc: line
for that pull request. So tell me, exactly what should have let me to
believe that i should have added anyone else to the _already_ sizable
Cc: line?? I could have done it, had i have more time and had i realized
the full scope of the change and the somewhat misleading Cc:s that were
on the original pull request, but i clearly was not _required_ to - and
your suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous.

Furthermore i reject the sometimes derogatory undertone of your mails
that implies that i should somehow have done more or different work than
i already did.

I really hope you treat other contributors and bug-reporters better than
you treated me :( Shall this be my last voluntary SCSI contribution for
a good while.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-02 20:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site