Patchwork cmd64x: irq 14: nobody cared - system is dreadfully slow

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Date June 21, 2009, 10:34 p.m.
Message ID <200906220034.22430.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/28959/
State Not Applicable
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Comments

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz - June 21, 2009, 10:34 p.m.
On Sunday 21 June 2009 23:19:50 David Miller wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:15:56 +0200
> 
> > On Sunday 21 June 2009 02:19:45 David Miller wrote:
> >> I wonder how much testing this commit received...
> > 
> > Too less, any help with improving testing coverage is welcomed
> > (this was just a tiny part of very large rework which has been tested
> > and has been sitting in linux-next for weeks before push to Linus).
> 
> Maybe you should leave the driver alone until you can get affirmative
> testing results from people who have the hardware?!?!? :-/
> 
> And in leiu of that, simply leave it alone until such testing can
> actually be performed.

Can't wait forever...

> That's why all the IDE drivers are constantly breaking on sparc.

URLs to bug-reports please.. or it didn't happened..

> The IDE layer is more than legacy at this point, so if you aren't
> fixing bugs (those reported by users and the fix for which can
> be absolutely tested), just leave it be.

Interesting, we have been steadily adding new hardware support
(there is another driver for embedded hardware pending inclusion)..

If you wanted to run IDE-stale tree I would have been more than happy
to help you with it by cc:ing you on bugfix patches.

> So this totally eliminates any argument you may have about necessary
> "infrastructure" changes that might be blocked by not being able to
> make these kinds modifications to drivers for devices you can't even
> test.

I'm really tired of this kind of hostility towards IDE changes and I also
don't have time for such unproductive discussions.  Lets get over this
quickly, since you seem to have such a great insight into running IDE layer
here is a little proposition..

ACK?  [ If not than can we please get back with the program? ]

---
 MAINTAINERS |    5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Miller - June 21, 2009, 10:57 p.m.
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:34:22 +0200

> Lets get over this quickly, since you seem to have such a great
> insight into running IDE layer here is a little proposition..
> 
> ACK?  [ If not than can we please get back with the program? ]

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Frans Pop - June 22, 2009, 3:47 a.m.
On Monday 22 June 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> I'm really tired of this kind of hostility towards IDE changes and I
> also don't have time for such unproductive discussions.

I can see your PoV, but OTOH I think you'll have to agree that having a 
driver break very early in the 2.6.29 cycle and not finding out about it 
until 2 full cycles later is not a good thing.

Although PATA has its own problems and the whole switch from IDE to PATA 
has had much more than its fair share of issues, it is a fact that most 
distros and users _are_ switching to the PATA drivers. The only reason I 
ran into this is because Debian is one of the very few who has not yet 
done so and my U10 is one of the few boxes I run a distro kernel on.

Your and Borislav's (and others) cleanup efforts have been huge and I've 
absolutely no doubt that they have brought major structural improvements 
to the IDE subsystem. One can but wonder whether PATA would have happened 
at all if that effort had started 5 years or so earlier...

But the problem remains that getting enough (especially timely) testing 
will be an ever increasing problem for the IDE drivers, simply because 
most users, and especially those users who do kernel testing during 
development cycles, no longer use them. For that reason I think that 
David's standpoint that IDE should be treated as a purely legacy 
subsystem makes sense.

Let me finish by joining others in thanking you for your huge efforts over 
the past years and complimenting you on the graceful way you're allowing 
this maintainer change to happen. I hope you will find a new challenge in 
the kernel; it would be a great pity to lose your skills and dedication.

Cheers,
FJP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -2783,10 +2783,9 @@  S:	Supported
 F:	drivers/scsi/ips.*
 
 IDE SUBSYSTEM
-P:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
-M:	bzolnier@gmail.com
+P:	David S. Miller
+M:	davem@davemloft.net
 L:	linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
-T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bart/ide-2.6.git
 S:	Maintained
 F:	Documentation/ide/
 F:	drivers/ide/