Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Ubuntu Kernel Team (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-kernel-team/)
-   -   Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-kernel-team/430633-enable-model-9240-megaraid-sas-controlers.html)

Tim Gardner 09-23-2010 01:43 AM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On 09/23/2010 09:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
> SRU Justification
>
> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from Linus'
> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>
> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable the megaraid_sas
> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at issue in this
> bug report.
>
> TEST CASE:
> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build and tested
> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the issue for
> them.
>
> Brad Figg (1):
> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
> sas2 controller
>
> Yang, Bo (1):
> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
> support to the driver
>
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>

Looks reasonable.

Acked-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>

--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Stefan Bader 09-23-2010 07:34 AM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On 09/23/2010 03:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
> SRU Justification
>
> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from Linus'
> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>
> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable the megaraid_sas
> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at issue in this
> bug report.
>

You are (assuming without realizing) cheating here. Yes, those two patches can
be found when looking at the 2.6.33.y tree. But that does not make them stable
updates. In fact those two were part of 2.6.33-rc1, not stable.

The two look harmless enough but I would think we should at least make an
attempt to submit them for 2.6.32.y.

> TEST CASE:
> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build and tested
> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the issue for
> them.
>
> Brad Figg (1):
> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
> sas2 controller
>

Beside of that, having you as author seems a bit odd. Was there a lot of change
required (backport)?

> Yang, Bo (1):
> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
> support to the driver

Generally, I don't think both of these should be marked SAUCE (or even UBUNTU)
as they origin from upstream. Again, it seems to make sense to at least try to
argue with Greg (maybe with help of the author) about those. They even have been
tested.

-Stefan

>
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Brad Figg 09-23-2010 02:30 PM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On 09/23/2010 12:34 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 03:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
>> SRU Justification
>>
>> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
>> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
>> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from Linus'
>> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>>
>> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable the megaraid_sas
>> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at issue in this
>> bug report.
>>
>
> You are (assuming without realizing) cheating here. Yes, those two patches can
> be found when looking at the 2.6.33.y tree. But that does not make them stable
> updates. In fact those two were part of 2.6.33-rc1, not stable.
>
> The two look harmless enough but I would think we should at least make an
> attempt to submit them for 2.6.32.y.
>
>> TEST CASE:
>> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build and tested
>> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the issue for
>> them.
>>
>> Brad Figg (1):
>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
>> sas2 controller
>>
>
> Beside of that, having you as author seems a bit odd. Was there a lot of change
> required (backport)?
>
>> Yang, Bo (1):
>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
>> support to the driver
>
> Generally, I don't think both of these should be marked SAUCE (or even UBUNTU)
> as they origin from upstream. Again, it seems to make sense to at least try to
> argue with Greg (maybe with help of the author) about those. They even have been
> tested.
>
> -Stefan
>
>>
>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
>> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>

Stefan,

You are correct. The two commits that I picked from the 2.6.33.y stable tree did
not come in as a result of a stable update but as part of the 2.6.33 development
cycle.

However, I was not trying in any way to deceive anyone here. I simply didn't do
all the homework that I should have and so the justification doesn't accurately
represent how the patches got into the tree.

Brad
--
Brad Figg brad.figg@canonical.com http://www.canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Stefan Bader 09-23-2010 02:47 PM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On 09/23/2010 04:30 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 12:34 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 09/23/2010 03:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
>>> SRU Justification
>>>
>>> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar
>>> in scope
>>> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a
>>> bug, and
>>> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from
>>> Linus'
>>> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>>>
>>> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable
>>> the megaraid_sas
>>> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at
>>> issue in this
>>> bug report.
>>>
>>
>> You are (assuming without realizing) cheating here. Yes, those two
>> patches can
>> be found when looking at the 2.6.33.y tree. But that does not make
>> them stable
>> updates. In fact those two were part of 2.6.33-rc1, not stable.
>>
>> The two look harmless enough but I would think we should at least make an
>> attempt to submit them for 2.6.32.y.
>>
>>> TEST CASE:
>>> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build
>>> and tested
>>> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the
>>> issue for
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Brad Figg (1):
>>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
>>> sas2 controller
>>>
>>
>> Beside of that, having you as author seems a bit odd. Was there a lot
>> of change
>> required (backport)?
>>
>>> Yang, Bo (1):
>>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
>>> support to the driver
>>
>> Generally, I don't think both of these should be marked SAUCE (or even
>> UBUNTU)
>> as they origin from upstream. Again, it seems to make sense to at
>> least try to
>> argue with Greg (maybe with help of the author) about those. They even
>> have been
>> tested.
>>
>> -Stefan
>>
>>>
>>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
>>> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Stefan,
>
> You are correct. The two commits that I picked from the 2.6.33.y stable
> tree did
> not come in as a result of a stable update but as part of the 2.6.33
> development
> cycle.
>
> However, I was not trying in any way to deceive anyone here. I simply
> didn't do
> all the homework that I should have and so the justification doesn't
> accurately
> represent how the patches got into the tree.
>
> Brad

I probably should not try to be funny early on. I did not want to give the
impression you try to do something stealthy. It rather should have been a
pointer that this is not (yet) a real stable patch and we should work on that
and even if failing to get it there should be careful or more correct with
provenance and references.
So sorry for the harsh sounding tone.

-Stefan

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Brad Figg 09-28-2010 03:55 PM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On 09/23/2010 12:34 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 03:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
>> SRU Justification
>>
>> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
>> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
>> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from Linus'
>> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>>
>> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable the megaraid_sas
>> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at issue in this
>> bug report.
>>
>
> You are (assuming without realizing) cheating here. Yes, those two patches can
> be found when looking at the 2.6.33.y tree. But that does not make them stable
> updates. In fact those two were part of 2.6.33-rc1, not stable.
>
> The two look harmless enough but I would think we should at least make an
> attempt to submit them for 2.6.32.y.
>
>> TEST CASE:
>> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build and tested
>> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the issue for
>> them.
>>
>> Brad Figg (1):
>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
>> sas2 controller
>>
>
> Beside of that, having you as author seems a bit odd. Was there a lot of change
> required (backport)?
>
>> Yang, Bo (1):
>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
>> support to the driver
>
> Generally, I don't think both of these should be marked SAUCE (or even UBUNTU)
> as they origin from upstream. Again, it seems to make sense to at least try to
> argue with Greg (maybe with help of the author) about those. They even have been
> tested.
>
> -Stefan
>
>>
>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
>> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>

I've sent email to the commit author asking for them to submit the patches to
stable upstream. I'm happy to change these from "SAUCE" patches to "(pre-stable)".
Anyone feel like giving this a second "acked-by"?

Brad
--
Brad Figg brad.figg@canonical.com http://www.canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Steve Conklin 09-29-2010 02:20 PM

Enable model 9240 MegaRaid SAS Controlers
 
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 18:14 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 05:55 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> > On 09/23/2010 12:34 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2010 03:09 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
> >>> SRU Justification
> >>>
> >>> Impact: The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
> >>> to the Ubuntu SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
> >>> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from Linus'
> >>> tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
> >>>
> >>> The 2.6.33.y upstream stable tree contains two commits which enable the megaraid_sas
> >>> driver to recognise the new models of MegaRaid SAS controllers at issue in this
> >>> bug report.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are (assuming without realizing) cheating here. Yes, those two patches can
> >> be found when looking at the 2.6.33.y tree. But that does not make them stable
> >> updates. In fact those two were part of 2.6.33-rc1, not stable.
> >>
> >> The two look harmless enough but I would think we should at least make an
> >> attempt to submit them for 2.6.32.y.
> >>
> >>> TEST CASE:
> >>> Two commits from the 2.6.33.y tree were applied to a Lucid test build and tested
> >>> by at least one subscriber to this bug who verified it resolved the issue for
> >>> them.
> >>>
> >>> Brad Figg (1):
> >>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: allocate the application cmds to
> >>> sas2 controller
> >>>
> >>
> >> Beside of that, having you as author seems a bit odd. Was there a lot of change
> >> required (backport)?
> >>
> >>> Yang, Bo (1):
> >>> UBUNTU: SAUCE: [SCSI] megaraid_sas: Add new megaraid SAS 2 controller
> >>> support to the driver
> >>
> >> Generally, I don't think both of these should be marked SAUCE (or even UBUNTU)
> >> as they origin from upstream. Again, it seems to make sense to at least try to
> >> argue with Greg (maybe with help of the author) about those. They even have been
> >> tested.
> >>
> >> -Stefan
> >>
> >>>
> >>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 5 +
> >>> 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > I've sent email to the commit author asking for them to submit the patches to
> > stable upstream. I'm happy to change these from "SAUCE" patches to "(pre-stable)".
> > Anyone feel like giving this a second "acked-by"?
> >
> > Brad
>
> Yeah, the patches looked at least self-contained enough to be acceptable (at
> least to me) as stable. The first one maybe is seen a tad large but all that is
> done adds only new handling. So I am fine with having that pre-stable.
>
> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
>
What he said.
Acked-by: Steve Conklin <sconklin@canonical.com>


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.