linux-kernel - Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:35:24 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	pcihpd-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix


* Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/