Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:20:59 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ata ata-queue.c Message-ID: <200506281521.00598.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8EFCED13-E340-4C7D-A13B-3A5B01C4241E@FreeBSD.org> References: <200506280906.j5S96qIi053675@repoman.freebsd.org> <200506281310.50238.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <8EFCED13-E340-4C7D-A13B-3A5B01C4241E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 02:24 pm, Søren Schmidt wrote: > On 28/06/2005, at 19:10, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:30 am, Søren Schmidt wrote: > >> On 28/06/2005, at 15:51, John Baldwin wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 05:06 am, SXren Schmidt wrote: > >>>> sos 2005-06-28 09:06:52 UTC > >>>> > >>>> FreeBSD src repository > >>>> > >>>> Modified files: > >>>> sys/dev/ata ata-queue.c > >>>> Log: > >>>> Zero donecount on auto request sense. > >>>> > >>>> PR: 81450 > >>>> Approved by: re@ (scottl) > >>> > >>> Are you going to commit this to 5.x now as well? FWIW, the patch > >>> in question > >>> was straight from the bug report as well. > >> > >> Well, I thought that the plan was to have 6.0 be the solution to 5.x > >> problems ;) > >> > >> Anyhow if/when I'll commit anything to 5.x, it will be the ATA driver > >> from 6.0/current. > >> The problem being that the ABI for atacontrol etc has changed so it > >> kindof breaks the charter of -stable IMHO. > >> Other than that I have the bits sitting here on my lone -stable box > >> just waiting for a push on the big red commit key :) > >> . > >> - Søren > > > > Well is it ok if I merge just this change to 5.x then? > > As I've stated earlier I don't support what's been put into 5.x to > "fix" bugs. > ATA mkIII is the fix for the 5.x problems/bugs from this end, so you > can do exactly what you want on the ATA code in 5.x as I don't really > care :) I'll be sure to remember that helpful attitude the next time you have an issue with one of your production machines that I could help with. Also, given that you committed the exact patch from the PR to HEAD and then claimed when you closed the PR prematurely that it was "solved (differently) in -current" that was very rude to the submitter who took time to find a bug in *your* code and submit a working patch to fix it. I've also offered numerous times to do the actual commit of the fix to 5.x if you would give it a quick glance over but you always responded to both me and the submitter by saying that the bug was already fixed in ata mkIII and wouldn't comment on the validity of the patch other than to say that the bug was fixed differently in a different file in current. Given that you just now committed the exact patch to HEAD, it would seem that, in fact, ata mkIII did _not_ contain the correct fix as you had previously stated, and I guess the fact that you committed it to HEAD finally gives me some actual feedback on my requests for you to give it a quick review so the fix could be put in 5.x (since I was under the impression from your earlier e-mails that this issue was present on 5.x only). -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506281521.00598.jhb>