Messages in this thread | | | From | Bjorn Helgaas <> | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:47:47 -0600 | Subject | Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric |
| |
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.
> 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.
I just haven't seen any concrete information that says -stable will be better off if it includes these patches. We've tripped over enough problems upstream that I'm concerned they might make things worse rather than better.
Bjorn -- 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/
| |