* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Are you seriously telling us that it required too much investigation > on your part to figure out that something with a compile failure in > drivers/scsi might belong on the scsi list? This is getting silly. Let me repeat it, because IMO it's really straightforward. My (quick) investigation based on the function name that was in the error message: drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:1897: error: implicit declaration of function 'pci_enable_device_bars' a straightforward search on "pci_enable_device_bars" led to a recent PCI API related change pushed by Greg, with the following straightforward subject line: [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.24 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/1/483 the email had this description: | Some general cleanups, minor tweaks, and a bit of PCI hotplug | updates, and some PCI Express updates for new features, if your | hardware happens to support it. furthermore, the mail already had two PCI mailing lists in its Cc: line. The PCI subsystem regularly does cross-treee changes, by its nature. i had all reasons to believe that this was a (innocious looking) PCI subsystem change and a harmless (but a tad under-tested) API cleanup that went haywire: it smelled like PCI, it walked like PCI and it quacked like PCI. So to me it was clearly a PCI merge not an SCSI merge, and i was really only interested in the first hop, i.e. i was primarily interested in the pull request that clearly changed multiple subsystems, and a seemingly API change that broke the build. Three mailing lists and three maintainers were already on the Cc: line for that pull request. So tell me, exactly what should have let me to believe that i should have added anyone else to the _already_ sizable Cc: line?? I could have done it, had i have more time and had i realized the full scope of the change and the somewhat misleading Cc:s that were on the original pull request, but i clearly was not _required_ to - and your suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous. Furthermore i reject the sometimes derogatory undertone of your mails that implies that i should somehow have done more or different work than i already did. I really hope you treat other contributors and bug-reporters better than you treated me :( Shall this be my last voluntary SCSI contribution for a good while. 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
