* Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> =================================================================== >> --- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c >> +++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c >> @@ -1894,7 +1894,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, >> uint16_t iotag; >> int bars = pci_select_bars(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM); >> - if (pci_enable_device_bars(pdev, bars)) >> + if (pci_enable_device_io(pdev)) >> goto out; > > Look at the line right above it... AFAICS you want > pci_enable_device_mem(), if the mask is selecting IORESOURCE_MEM BARs. > > Also a CC to linux-scsi and the driver author would be nice, as they > are the ones with hardware and can verify. it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to lkml with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own build, letting you guys figure it out.) Instead i did a search of lkml (based on the function name in the build error) and figured out where the pull request was on lkml: Greg. I replied to that mail, he'll obviously know whom else to Cc from that point on (if anyone). I really didnt want to (nor did i need to) figure out whether this was some general driver level API change that happen kernel-wide, or some SCSI specific change. I simply replied to the pull request whose Cc: line seemed well-populated to me already. I also took a look at the commit itself and did a quick hack in a hurry to keep the tests rolling. It really did not occur to me that i should have added anyone else to the Cc: line, as linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was Cc:-ed already so i assumed the interest was from that angle. ( And as this was spent from my family's weekend time and i had no time and no interest to dig any further than to figure out the "first hop" of the change that broke the build, and the parties who initiated that hop. I'm in fact surprised that your and James's answer to my bugreport is hostility. ) So i find your suggestion that i should have added more people to the Cc: line unfair on several levels. > This set of changes seemed like 50% guesswork to me, without > consulting the authors :( And unlike many changes, you actually have > to know the hardware [or get clues from surrounding code] to make the > change. you mean the whole set of changes? Or just mine? Mine was a 30 seconds guesswork of course, i dont have the hardware, i didnt do the change, nor did i do anything near that code - i just saw the build failure stop my testing and sent in this notification and a hack. That's why i sent it to Greg, as a reply to the mail where he pushed these changes upstream and who'll know what to do with it from that point on. My patch can be totally thrown away (and should be, apparently). but ... i guess next time i'll think twice before sending any bugreports about or related to the SCSI code anywhere, unless they become really annoying. Who needs this hassle? Ingo - 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
