lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > James Bottomley wrote:
    > > The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
    > > you have in -mm. We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree
    >
    > Seven hours before you posted this, in
    > <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew already
    > noted it was not in -mm.
    >
    > A trivial examination of the broken-out mm patches backs up the absence
    > of Jens' block tree, too.
    >
    > So let's put this myth / bad assumption to rest, shall we?

    Sorry ... I just assumed from the fact that it had been in the block git
    tree for six months that it was also in -mm.

    > > Yes ... particularly in large trees like SCSI, there's the maintainer
    > > "bugger if I don't mail it out now I don't get it in for another three
    > > months" factor.
    >
    > That factor always exists. It's not confined to SCSI or large trees.
    > It's basic the nature of the merge window. Nothing new or shocking here.
    >
    >
    > > bsg had actually been sitting in the block tree since 2.6.21, so it had
    > > followed the delayed merge rule ... it just seems that it didn't get
    > > enough integration testing in that six months. This is what I consider
    >
    > It didn't get integration testing, at least in part, because it did not
    > hit our official pre-release tree. Quoth Andrew:
    > > I pulled git-scsi-misc on July 19 and there was no bsg code in there at
    > > all. I pulled again on July 20 and all the bsg code was in mainline.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I don't disagree; my point is that bsg did follow this rule (in fact it
    >
    > Evidence says otherwise.

    It followed the rule of trying to stabilise outside mainline ... it just
    didn't get sufficient integration testing.

    > > I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured. There
    > > were just a few integration issues.
    >
    > I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really
    > gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still
    > getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953).

    This would be the ABI change I talked about in the previous emails.

    So would this problem have been fixed simply by adding the missing block
    tree to -mm?

    James


    -
    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: 2007-08-07 17:43    [W:0.027 / U:33.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site