From: Greg KH <gregkh@...>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix (was: [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.24)
Date: Feb 2, 2:44 pm 2008
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:13:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg KH wrote:
>
> > PCI: Remove users of pci_enable_device_bars()
> > PCI: Remove pci_enable_device_bars()
>
> simple allyesconfig testing found a build failure due to last night's
> PCI merge, on 32-bit x86:
>
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c: In function 'lpfc_pci_probe_one':
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:1897: error: implicit declaration of function 'pci_enable_device_bars'
>
> fix attached.
>
> ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
> 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully re-tested
> with Linus-latest since that point. )
Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch myself,
adding the needed conversion to my tree, it's here, on my disk!
Oh crap, I never checked it in.
/me goes off to sulk in shame.
Very sorry about this, totally my fault, I knew this needed to be fixed,
fixed it, but it didn't propogate to the tree to send to Linus.
I suck. I need a vacation and an empty inbox.
I'll be sending fixup patches for this and other merge messes in a few
hours, once the coffee has kicked in...
greg k-h
--
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix (was: [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.24)
Date: Feb 2, 3:05 pm 2008
* Greg KH wrote:
> > ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
> > 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
> > re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
>
> Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch myself,
> adding the needed conversion to my tree, it's here, on my disk!
>
> Oh crap, I never checked it in.
>
> /me goes off to sulk in shame.
you might want to join the (sizable) club of us deeply ashamed people
who recently introduced upstream build failures :-/
Ingo
--
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix
Date: Feb 2, 4:56 pm 2008
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Greg KH wrote:
>
>>> ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
>>> 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
>>> re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
>> Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch myself,
>> adding the needed conversion to my tree, it's here, on my disk!
>>
>> Oh crap, I never checked it in.
>>
>> /me goes off to sulk in shame.
>
> you might want to join the (sizable) club of us deeply ashamed people
> who recently introduced upstream build failures :-/
Personal CC differences aside I do think you guys both do a good
job of staying on top of your subsystems.
We all wear the brown paper bag on occasion, and with the "merge
maelstrom" during each merge window, I'm quite frankly amazed at how
_little_ stuff get broken overall.
Jeff
--
From: Greg KH <greg@...>
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix
Date: Feb 2, 7:23 pm 2008
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 03:56:04PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >>> ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
> >>> 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
> >>> re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
> >> Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch myself,
> >> adding the needed conversion to my tree, it's here, on my disk!
> >>
> >> Oh crap, I never checked it in.
> >>
> >> /me goes off to sulk in shame.
> >
> > you might want to join the (sizable) club of us deeply ashamed people
> > who recently introduced upstream build failures :-/
>
> Personal CC differences aside I do think you guys both do a good
> job of staying on top of your subsystems.
Heh, thanks.
> We all wear the brown paper bag on occasion, and with the "merge
> maelstrom" during each merge window, I'm quite frankly amazed at how
> _little_ stuff get broken overall.
Yeah, I re-ran some statistics the other day on our kernel development
rate, and changed my formula after Andrew accused me of severely
undercounting the rate of change.
Turns out that as of 2.6.24-rc8 for the 2.6.24 kernel release we did:
lines added per day: 4945
lines removed per day: 2006
lines modified per day: 1702
And note, that is real stuff, not renames or file moves at all, git
handles not reporting that.
That's for the 99 days that it took to do 2.6.24-rc8 (I need to re-run
the scripts now that 2.6.24 is out.)
It's fricken scarily amazing that things are still working at all...
Just something to make you all sleep well at night :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
Greg continued..
And just when I was about to put down my pencil, greg continued. I watcheth in awe. Having finished parsing the contents of Gregs words and about ready to take a moment to think about the next question "blah!" continued Greg. I thought then, that everything had frozen and Greg was a statue. But greg continued, ignoring the fact that I was in the middle of describing what he had said before to the readers.