Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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, 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 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 :)
> >> .
> >> - 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 have an is=
sue=20
with one of your production machines that I could help with.  Also, given=20
that you committed the exact patch from the PR to HEAD and then claimed whe=
n=20
you closed the PR prematurely that it was "solved (differently) in -current=
"=20
that was very rude to the submitter who took time to find a bug in *your*=20
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=20
you would give it a quick glance over but you always responded to both me a=
nd=20
the submitter by saying that the bug was already fixed in ata mkIII and=20
wouldn't comment on the validity of the patch other than to say that the bu=
g=20
was fixed differently in a different file in current.  Given that you just=
=20
now committed the exact patch to HEAD, it would seem that, in fact, ata mkI=
II=20
did _not_ contain the correct fix as you had previously stated, and I guess=
=20
the fact that you committed it to HEAD finally gives me some actual feedbac=
k=20
on my requests for you to give it a quick review so the fix could be put in=
=20
5.x (since I was under the impression from your earlier e-mails that this=20
issue was present on 5.x only).

=2D-=20
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =3D  http://www.FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506281521.00598.jhb>