Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161119AbWBBFMf (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:12:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161117AbWBBFMf (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:12:35 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.88]:24290 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161119AbWBBFMe (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:12:34 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by AlPB on Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:12:19 -0600 In-Reply-To: <43E0F73B.6040507@pobox.com> References: <200602010609.k1169QDX017012@hera.kernel.org> <43E0F73B.6040507@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg KH , Andrew Morton Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mark Rustad Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: restore 2 missing pci ids Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:11:36 -0600 To: Jeff Garzik X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1806 Lines: 43 Jeff, On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: >> tree e425ac74afc0b89f3a513290a2dd5e503d974906 >> parent 654143ee3a73b2793350b039a135d9cd3101147b >> author Mark Rustad Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:47:29 -0800 >> committer Greg Kroah-Hartman Wed, 01 Feb 2006 >> 10:00:11 -0800 >> [PATCH] PCI: restore 2 missing pci ids >> Somewhere between 2.6.14 and 2.6.15-rc3, some PCI ids were apparently >> removed. The ecc.c module, which is not a part of the kernel.org >> tree, but >> included in some distributions, fails to compile. >> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman >> include/linux/pci_ids.h | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Why was this applied? We could apply these patches all day, and > get nothing else done. If it's not in the kernel tree, we > shouldn't be worrying about it. Let the distros patch it in. Well, I offered the patch because I found that I suddenly needed it. I did not know why the ids had been removed, but it looks to me like edac is coming right along and will need the ids itself, so I sent the patch off. Frankly, I was surprised that the patch was so quickly accepted. I perceive some difference of opinion on how PCI ids should be handled. Is there a consensus on a better way to handle ids? Why were the ids removed in the first place? THAT was worse than wasted effort. -- Mark Rustad, MRustad@mac.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/