On 09/15/2017 09:03 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.
Ah, good to know why it didn't show up. Thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
