[PATCH] rpaphp broken in ameslab

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:56:28PM -0500, linas at austin.ibm.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:14:33PM -0500, linas at austin.ibm.com wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:03:32PM -0500, Linda Xie wrote:
> > > > Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >By the way, I notice that upstream rpaphp_core.c now has the call to
> > > > >eeh_register_disable_func(), although the actual function isn't
> > > > >present in arch/ppc64/kernel/eeh.c.
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > You and Anton are responsible for keeping the arch/ppc64 directories
> > > in sync between sles9, ameslab, and akpm.  You are, after all, the
> > > one true official, designated maintainer ... if the code hasn't been
> > > migrated to akpm ... uuh ... what am I missing?
> > >
> > > >From where I sit, the sles9 code is really the latest, greatest, most
> > > tested and debugged arch/ppc64 code that there is.  This is the tree
> > > that the developers get thier code/patches into.
> >
> > And that is the big problem.
> >
> > Those patches/fixes should go to mainline, not directly to suse.  How
> > are they going to get back into mainline?
>
> My understanding is that Paul Mackerras and Anton Blanchard are the
> designated maintainers of the arch/ppc64 tree.  They are responsible
> for sending the patches upstream, getting them into mainline.

No, you are responsible for sending those patches to them, in public, to
get them, and the community, to accept them and then pass them on.  It's
not up to them to do all of the work in picking pieces out of different
trees and forwarding them upward.

> > > > > In fact I think the
> > > > >separation is bogus; the EEH code and the rpaphp code are both part of
> > > > >the driver for the RPA PCI subsystem.
> > >
> > > prolly.  But note that the generic hotplug API's need to be extended
> > > to give device drivers a mechanism to ask RPA PHP / EEH if a disconnect
> > > event occured.  Last I talked to Greg, he wasn't willing to accept
> > > something like that yet, so its a bit up in the air.
> >
> > I wasn't willing to accept that, as that was the wrong way to do this.
>
> Yes, well, a few months ago, Torvalds made me promise that this would
> be the way that it would be done eventually.  You were cc'ed on that
> chain of notes.  Why didn't you take that up with him?

Yes, I remember that.  When is "eventually" going to happen?  next week?
2.7?  2.9?

thanks,

greg k-h

** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/