On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 09:08:23PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 07:55:19PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>>On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> pci_set_bus_of_node() sets virtual PCI bus's device node to PHB's >>>>> device node wrongly. The patch fixes the issue. >>>> >>>>This needs more detail. How is this bug visible to users? Is there a >>>>bug report? Is this a regression? Should it be marked for stable? >>>> >>> >>> I don't have opened bug for it. I just found the problem (maybe not >>> a problem) when reading the code: The original implementation binds >>> PHB device-tree node with "virtual bus", which doesn't make sense. >> >>Does this result in something being wrong in sysfs? How is this bug >>visible to users? >> > > No, I don't think it caused anything wrong in sysfs. So I'm not sure > it's a real problem and need the fix. Please judge. Well, that's not really the way I work. If somebody proposes a patch, I expect the changelog to be an argument for why the patch is needed. I'm not disagreeing with your patch; I'm just trying to get you to provide the justification for it. I'm not an OF expert, so it's not obvious to me. I probably could spend some time researching it and convince myself, but I would rather have *you* convince me :) >>> Yes, I guess it should be marked for stable if you don't object. Once we know what the user-visible effect of this change is, it will probably be obvious whether it should be marked for stable. If it doesn't really fix anything, it probably should not go to stable. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
