From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932071AbYBBTf5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:35:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754599AbYBBTfs (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:35:48 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49274 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752257AbYBBTfr (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:35:47 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:35:24 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix Message-ID: <20080202193524.GC27927@elte.hu> References: <20080201231147.GA18174@suse.de> <20080202111322.GA30767@elte.hu> <47A49171.2000003@garzik.org> <20080202170828.GA12748@elte.hu> <47A4A96D.2040709@garzik.org> <20080202175738.GA26560@elte.hu> <47A4BB3C.6050709@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47A4BB3C.6050709@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeff Garzik wrote: >> so i'm still totally befuddled why you think that there was anything >> particularly wrong or unhelpful about me replying to the specific >> pull request that introduced a particular breakage into the kernel. >> Had i mailed to lkml with a terse "kernel build broke" message with >> just an URL to a config and the build breakage, you could rightfully >> have complained that i should have done more to properly direct my >> bugreport. But this breakage was about a PCI API change, the pull >> request had a PCI mailing list Cc:-ed, why should i have thought that >> this needs the attention of any other parties? > > Because the change required knowledge not only of PCI, but of the > hardware in question. As your patch demonstrated. > > And yes -- the original changes should have been CC'd to interested > parties as well. I'm still waiting to hear back from Alan or Bart > whether the ATA/IDE changes in that PCI pile actually work... the > original changeset even noted that relevant parties had not yet been > queried. so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a largely outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3 maintainers and 3 mailing lists in the Cc: were somehow not enough and that i was supposed to grow the already sizable Cc: list even more? Ingo