From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] pata_efar: always program master_data before slave_data Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:19:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20110208122314.19110.4092.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site> <20110208122409.19110.4233.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site> <20110208130701.19709cc6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110208132518.300bb098@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4D514754.30203@ru.mvista.com> <4D62C5E1.9070307@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:63665 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752862Ab1BVJTI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:19:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4D62C5E1.9070307@pobox.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Jeff Garzik 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 the= re >> are no further concerns with them (thus leaving the merging of >> PIIX-like drivers for later)? =A0They got additional testing on ICH4= and >> they look mostly safe& =A0straight-forward compared to #16-21. > > This seems to directly contradict what you wrote earlier in the threa= d, > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0This is why patches were posted to mailing list with a= request > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0for a real hardware testing: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"All testing was done using QEMU's PIIX3 controller em= ulation > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0so any testing with real EFAR, IT8213, old PIIX, RDC a= nd > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Radisys R82600 PATA controllers would be really apprec= iated.." > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0instead of request for a merge. =A0It was all there in= initial > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0mail. > > and > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I do not really care that much if it will be merged ev= er > > Regardless of this self-contradictory attitude, I do want useful patc= hes and > many of these patches seem useful. Nothing self-contradictory there. :) =46irst 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, an= d then > look at merging the result. =A0In the midst of all the arguing, produ= ctive > work / forward progress is occurring, so the end result should be pos= itive. > > 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