On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:03:13PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 8/28/2016 2:35 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:28:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 09:26:13PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:17:58AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >>>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:58:32AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> By Mellanox HW design and SW implementation poll_cq never > >>>>> fails and returns errors, so all these prints are to catch ULP bugs. > >>>> > >>>> Eh? How can a ULP cause poll_cq to get errors? > >>>> > >>>> Are you sure these are not driver bugs? > >>>> > >>>> Why can't you just print and discard the broken CQ entry? > >>>> > >>>> What should use ULP do when it get EINVAL? You say poll again is > >>>> not correct, so you suggest a full QP tear down? > >>> > >>> See patches 4 and 6, they completely removed these EINVALs. > >> > >> So the commit message is still wrong. > >> > >> Why do we need this revert? Just squash it and mark it fixup the > >> original. > > > > We need this revert, because the original commit is wrong and as was presented > > by Sasha Levin in his talk about automatic creation of stable trees [1], he needs > > this information to ensure that this commit won't be in stable tree by mistake. > > > > [1] > > https://lcccna2016.sched.org/event/7JW4/automating-the-creation-of-stable-trees-sasha-levin-verizon-labs > > I didn't see the presentation at this link, but I'm not sure I agree > with your statement here. There should be no difference, effectively, > between a commit to revert a bad commit, and a commit to fix a bad > commit that uses a Fixes: tag referencing the original commit. The final code will look the same, but it will be much easier for the tools to pickup them. > > > -- > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> > GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
