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    [W:0.048 / U:0.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site