On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:55:57PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 09/15/2017 01:51 PM, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 13:48 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2017 01:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In any case, your patch introduces a regression on systems. Please get
> >>>>> it reverted now, and then you can come up with a new approach to fix the
> >>>>> double enable of the upstream bridge.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who's sending in the revert? I can certainly do it if no one else does,
> >>>> but it needs to be done.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not seeing any patches coming out of Srinath to fix up the
> >>>> situation, so we should revert the broken patch until a better solution
> >>>> exists.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. I don't have the history here (apparently it never made lkml, for
> >>> example), so I don't even know which commit you're talking about.
> >>>
> >>> From some of the context it looks like commit 40f11adc7cd9 ("PCI:
> >>> Avoid race while enabling upstream bridges"), is that correct?
> >>
> >> Yes, Luca says that Bjorn already sent in the revert request, I just
> >> didn't see it since I wasn't CC'ed on it. So looks like we're all
> >> good, provided that makes it into -rc1. 40f11adc7cd9 is the broken
> >> commit.
> >
> > Strange... AFAICT you *were* CCed on it. And so was everyone else in
> > the original thread (+LKML)...
>
> Hmm, never showed up here. Very odd!
Sorry, I think this is probably because I'm an idiot and sent it from
an @google.com account and it got rejected because the DMARC check
failed.
Bjorn
