From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264056AbTDWOkJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:40:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264061AbTDWOkJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:40:09 -0400 Received: from [81.80.245.157] ([81.80.245.157]:53942 "EHLO smtp.alcove-fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264056AbTDWOjX (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:39:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:51:22 +0200 From: Stelian Pop To: Ben Collins Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: IEEE-1394 problem on init [ was Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc1 ] Message-ID: <20030423145122.GL820@hottah.alcove-fr> Reply-To: Stelian Pop Mail-Followup-To: Stelian Pop , Ben Collins , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Marcelo Tosatti References: <20030423122940.51011.qmail@web14002.mail.yahoo.com> <20030423125315.GH820@hottah.alcove-fr> <20030423130139.GD354@phunnypharm.org> <20030423132227.GI820@hottah.alcove-fr> <20030423133256.GG354@phunnypharm.org> <20030423135814.GJ820@hottah.alcove-fr> <20030423135448.GI354@phunnypharm.org> <20030423142131.GK820@hottah.alcove-fr> <20030423142353.GL354@phunnypharm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030423142353.GL354@phunnypharm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:23:53AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > While this is a reasonable explanation, we are now in rc mode, and > > your changes are not trivial, they could introduce a big pile of > > new bugs. > > > > Marcelo, please revert the latest IEEE1394 changeset entirely. > > > > Let's hope that things will happen differently in 2.4.22-pre :( > > Uh no, reverting it will just re-introduce bugs that it fixed. Maybe, but the version prior to 2.4.21-pre7 worked pretty good for me. > 2.4.22-pre should have come around a long time ago. The only reason most > of the changes in 2.4.21-pre for ieee1394 are there is because of the > amount of time that 2.4.21-pre has been sitting around. I was trying to > hold off most of these changes for 2.4.22-pre, but .21-pre lingered for > so long it became unreasonable. I entirely agree. However, the patch we are discussing has only *6 days*. If you had submitted it 2 months ago, there wouldn't be such problems. [BTW: searching back the l-k archives doesn't find any occurances of your patch. I guess you sended it directly to Marcelo...] > Then after a long huge pause, it suddenly goes -rc. Should that leave me > stuck? Don't think so. Sure, you should continue development and submit a fresh new version ready to be tested in 2.4.22-pre1/pre2. As for 2.4.21, well, we want something pretty well tested. Will this be the case with your new mega-patch ? I don't think so. The safest is to go back to a version which worked. At least the bugs of that version are known, which is not the case for the new version. Stelian. -- Stelian Pop Alcove - http://www.alcove.com