Martin, On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Souptick" == Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Souptick, > > Sorry about the delay. Been out for a few days. > >>>> Inside mvs_task_prep(), pci_pool_alloc() followed by memset will be >>>> replaced by pci_pool_zalloc() > > Souptick> Any further comment on this ? > > I took one of your other patches because the driver maintainer acked it, > thus assuming responsibility for testing it and fixing any regressions > it may cause. > > The failure rate on these "trivial" patches to old and unmaintained > drivers is very high. And since you are not fixing any bugs and your > change is functionally identical what the code already does, why would > we merge it and risk a regression? (for changes like this, a Tested-by: > from somebody with actual hardware is worth a thousand Reviewed-by: > tags). > > Also, I'm not really convinced that this constant churn of new and > "improved" kernel interface helper functions is really solving anything. > Quite the contrary. Real bug fixes for drivers adopting the > pci_pool_zalloc() interface will now potentially be harder to backport > to stable releases predating 4.4 or whenever that call was introduced. > > So in summary, I don't see any actual benefits to your proposed > change. It's probably fine, but why would I risk merging it? I understand the importance of testing this patch on old and unmaintained driver and totally agreed with your point of view now. I will drop this patch. If possible, can you please let me know what are all the basic stability test cases are covered for SCSI drivers? > > Hope that all makes sense... > > Thanks! > > -- > Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering Thanks - Souptick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
