Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:04 -0600 | | From | Greg KH <> | | Subject | Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric |
| |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 02:22:11PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 01:47:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> > >> >> It's not obvious that this fits the criteria for -stable > >> >> (Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt). > >> >> > >> >> For example, I can't tell what real problem this fixes. > >> > > >> > Yeah, it's not obvious, but I have had a lot of reports that 3.0 does > >> > not work on some systems without this set of patches. Now figuring out > >> > of those same systems ever worked at all is getting to be quite > >> > difficult as I don't have access to the hardware, and the people that do > >> > aren't responding to test requests. But from what I gather, 2.6.32 did > >> > work on these boxes, so it is a regression somehow, but I am not > >> > positive of this. > >> > >> I'd like to know more about this regression. > > > > It shows up as an oops that prevents the machine from booting. > > > >> > Now I'm very open to pushback, and if people really don't want these in > >> > (i.e. the PCI maintainer(s) say no), then I'll drop them and work with > >> > the distros to get them into their trees so that their customers's > >> > systems will work properly. > >> > >> If distros want these patches, does that mean they have bug reports? > >> URLs to them would be helpful. > > > > All of the ones I have are "private" at the moment due to the hardware > > and product being tested by the users, sorry. > > > > I really wish that some of the people who had this problem would post > > publically, and I guess we could just say, because they aren't being > > public about it, it shouldn't go into a stable tree. And I don't have a > > problem with that. > > I think accepting patches without our having a chance to see the > problem sets a bad precedent. It's quite common to see patches that > "solve" the problem, but do it in the wrong way. > > If the hardware is secret, maybe they could open a new, sanitized bug > report? It should be easy to remove the valuable details from the > dmesg log and oops.
I'll go ask again for them to do this, and I'll drop these patches from the release.
thanks,
greg k-h -- 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/
|  |