Re: [PATCH 05/20] pata_efar: always program master_data before slave_data

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 04:25 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Jeff, would it be possible to queue patches #01-15 for 2.6.39 if there
>> are no further concerns with them (thus leaving the merging of
>> PIIX-like drivers for later)?  They got additional testing on ICH4 and
>> they look mostly safe&  straight-forward compared to #16-21.
>
> This seems to directly contradict what you wrote earlier in the thread,
>
>        This is why patches were posted to mailing list with a request
>        for a real hardware testing:
>
>        "All testing was done using QEMU's PIIX3 controller emulation
>        so any testing with real EFAR, IT8213, old PIIX, RDC and
>        Radisys R82600 PATA controllers would be really appreciated.."
>
>        instead of request for a merge.  It was all there in initial
>        mail.
>
> and
>
>        I do not really care that much if it will be merged ever
>
> Regardless of this self-contradictory attitude, I do want useful patches and
> many of these patches seem useful.

Nothing self-contradictory there. :)

First quote is about patches #01-15 only, not whole patchset (#01-20)
like the second one, and I still don't care _that_ much personally if
it gets merged since it is all unpaid & voluntary work.

> So I will continue watching the Bart/Alan/Sergei threads play out, and then
> look at merging the result.  In the midst of all the arguing, productive
> work / forward progress is occurring, so the end result should be positive.
>
> It would be nice if we could get at least an "it works" test for the older
> hardware, since those are the changes /least/ likely to be tested by
> queueing to linux-next.

I was thinking about re-doing ata_piix part in a way that we could
merge it now by adding support for older PIIX-alikes to ata_piix and
making it enabled only if "all_piixalikes" module parameter is
specified.   This way older drivers would be left untouched for now
and we can easily get in-tree testing for a new code.  Does it sound
as a viable alternative?

Thanks,
Bartlomiej