Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:50:55 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <04E48272-9625-406C-AF58-BA1A554FFC89@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200506281521.00598.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200506280906.j5S96qIi053675@repoman.freebsd.org> <200506281310.50238.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <8EFCED13-E340-4C7D-A13B-3A5B01C4241E@FreeBSD.org> <200506281521.00598.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28/06/2005, at 21:20, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 28 June 2005 02:24 pm, S=F8ren Schmidt wrote: > >> On 28/06/2005, at 19:10, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:30 am, S=F8ren 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 =20= >>>> 5.x >>>> problems ;) >>>> >>>> Anyhow if/when I'll commit anything to 5.x, it will be the ATA =20 >>>> 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 :) >>>> . >>>> - S=F8ren >>>> >>> >>> 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 =20 > have an issue > with one of your production machines that I could help with. Also, =20= > given > that you committed the exact patch from the PR to HEAD and then =20 > claimed when > you closed the PR prematurely that it was "solved (differently) in -=20= > current" > that was very rude to the submitter who took time to find a bug in =20 > *your* > code and submit a working patch to fix it. Just to give the balance here I have mailed with the submitter and =20 excused that it wasn't in -current but only in my local tree, shit =20 happens you know.. > I've also offered numerous times to do the actual commit of the fix =20= > to 5.x if > you would give it a quick glance over but you always responded to =20 > both me and > the submitter by saying that the bug was already fixed in ata mkIII =20= > and > wouldn't comment on the validity of the patch other than to say =20 > that the bug > was fixed differently in a different file in current. Given that =20 > you just > now committed the exact patch to HEAD, it would seem that, in fact, =20= > ata mkIII > did _not_ contain the correct fix as you had previously stated, and =20= > I guess > the fact that you committed it to HEAD finally gives me some actual =20= > feedback > on my requests for you to give it a quick review so the fix could =20 > be put in > 5.x (since I was under the impression from your earlier e-mails =20 > that this > issue was present on 5.x only). Right, and all the mess is because it was decided to hack around in =20 ATA in 5.x whilst it was well known that the mkIII work was close to =20 being done. Mind you mkIII is all about fixing bugs in ATA, and =20 finetuning the infrastructure for future work. That made me abandon ATA as is in 5.x, as I only have 24 hours a day =20 and a real life to take care off (I know that is not the common case =20 around here), and I simply don't have the time to sort out what hss =20 been randomly thrown into the pot, sorry. If the project cannot live =20 with that, I'll hand in my maintainer and commit bit any day, just =20 say when, I'm tired so tired already.. Now, I do have a 5.4 version of ATA from current, but its unclear to =20 me if it is wanted/allowed into 5.x, and until that eventual commit =20 happens I'm out of the loop on ATA in 5.x which I also stated =20 repeatedly here on the lists. That all said I seriously think we all need a vacation and several =20 nights of good sleep :) - S=F8ren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?04E48272-9625-406C-AF58-BA1A554FFC89>