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
>>> 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
>>> 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"?
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 <email@example.com>
kernel-team mailing list