Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2
[Posted August 7, 2007 by corbet]
| From: |
| Jeff Garzik <jeff-AT-garzik.org> |
| To: |
| James.Smart-AT-Emulex.Com |
| Subject: |
| Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2 |
| Date: |
| Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:34:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID: |
| <46B89F2E.10405@garzik.org> |
| Cc: |
| James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-AT-SteelEye.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article,
Thread
|
James Smart wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> The lpfc update was probably the biggest thing, LOC-wise. And even
>> though that was mostly bug fixes -- and notably NOT 100% fixes -- it
>> is big enough to warrant integration testing and exposure prior to
>> mainline. Definitely merge-window-open material AFAICS.
>
> FYI - it is integrated and tested prior to mainline, by Emulex (and who
> else *really* tests it close to the degree we do ?). We do so, as a whole,
> weeks ahead of the submit to the maintainer. Usually, there's only a couple
> of small api changes that are picked up when we merge into the maintainers
> pool. And most of these are caught by us prior anyway as we package the
> patchsets and ensure the integration into the maintainers pool is smooth.
This is a highly common pattern, and unfortunately you get the highly
common Linux response:
In Linux we never ever assume a driver is working simply because the
hardware vendor tested it. A decade of real world experience PROVES
precisely the opposite -- getting code out into the world early and
often repeatedly turned up problems not seen in hardware vendor's testing.
Take a lesson from when I was on Linus's shit-list... twice: Twice,
Intel submitted an e1000 update after the merge window closed. Twice,
they claimed the driver passed their quite-exhaustive internal testing.
And twice, the most popular network driver broke for large masses of
users because I took a hardware vendor's word on testing rather than
rely on the testing PROVEN to flush out problems: public linux kernel
testing.
I'm not singling out Intel, there are plenty of other hardware vendors
that repeat the exact same pattern.
It's quite simply impossible for a hardware vendor to test all the weird
combinations in the field. Our test lab -- the Internet -- is the one
we trust.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(
Log in to post comments)