[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/pci: don't use crs for root if we only have one root bus
    On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Jesse Barnes <> wrote:
    > > > [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix bugs
    > > > in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since we're
    > > > supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate pulling
    > > > known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it shows
    > > > itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff that they
    > > > know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a problem. ]
    > >
    > > Yeah, 100% agreed. I didn't hear any reports until after people
    > > started using your tree, so I think this case was handled
    > > correctly: push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes
    > > wide open for the possibility we'd need to revert.
    > There's only one small gripe i have with the handling of it: the
    > timing. "9e9f46c: PCI: use ACPI _CRS data by default" was written
    > and committed on June 11th, two days _after_ the merge window
    > opened.
    > That's way too late for maybe-broken changes to x86 lowlevel details
    > (especially if it touches hw-environmental interaction - which is
    > very hard to test with meaningful coverage), and it's also pretty
    > much the worst moment to solicit testing from people who are busy
    > getting their stuff to Linus and who are busy testing out any of the
    > unexpected interactions and bugs.
    > So this was, to a certain degree, a predictable outcome. Trees in
    > the Linux "critical path" of testing (core kernel, x86, core
    > networking, very common drivers, PCI, driver core, VFS, etc.) should
    > generally try to cool down 1-2 weeks before the merge window -
    > because breakage there can do a lot of knock-on cascading damage.
    > Two weeks is not a lot of time and the effects of showstopper bugs
    > get magnified disproportionately.

    Yes, I was also thinking about this when I checked the commit date. And
    totally agree with Ingo's suggestions.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-25 09:31    [W:0.021 / U:3.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site