From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262206AbVF1Wev (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:34:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262202AbVF1WcT (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:32:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:13490 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262206AbVF1Wb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:31:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:30:12 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jean Delvare , chrisw@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, jmforbes@linuxtx.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, torvalds@osdl.org, chuckw@quantumlinux.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com Subject: Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization. Message-ID: <20050628223012.GG9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20050627224651.GI9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050627225349.GK9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050628235148.4512d046.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote: > The threshold for "what belongs in -stable" is a) set too high and b) > over-zealously enforced. Do you have things you'd like to see in -stable that didn't make the cut? > > > Return to previous held-logic of calling scsi_add_host() only > > > after the board has been completely initialized. > > > > What real bug is it supposed to fix? (I guess some, but this leading > > comment should give the datails.) > > If that's what was in the patch which went into 2.6.13 then we should be OK > with a full backport. If the person who originally raised that patch put > unrelated things into a single patch then that's where the problem started. Agreed. > Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch. Yup, if it's only part of the patch, it needs to be re-tested to be sure something important wasn't dropped in the chop up. > > > Also return pci_*() error-codes during probe failure paths. > > > > How does this belong to stable please? I don't see this fixing any > > critical bug. > > But it's obviously safe. > > > > - if (ret != 0) { > > > + if (ret) { > > > > This aint -stable material. > > But it's obviously safe. Let's use our brains on these patches and not > become beholden to doctrine, OK? I agree. The real fix only is 100% preferred, but not at the risk of a patch that's less stable. We've certainly asked for that as the rule of thumb, but it is just that...a rule of thumb.