So maybe instead of a gazillion different CRs, you could just do a single CR saying "incorporate changes from upstream supplier". I'd still like to have some explanation in that CR for what all the changes are for, but you can coordinate with Masa to get the details.
(Of course, listing all the CRs individually is even better, but I do recognize it is potentially a fair bit more effort.) -- Garrett Alan DuBoff wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> Generally, don't include the PSARC case number in wx comments for >> integration of sfe if sfe has already been integrated (it has). >> >> sfe.c: line 902, extra blank line added. >> sfe.c: line 1170: I guess these changes are to avoid side effects >> from reads? >> sfe.c: line 1188, 1243, 1296, 1450: These are not for CR 6655415, but >> fix another bug, please CR it separately >> sfe.c: line 1268 is yet another, separate bug fixed, and also needs >> its own CR (seems a few dp38165 changes) >> sfe.c: line 1644 - is this yet another bug fix? >> sfe.c: line 1654-1699, this is new functionality a different part, >> another CR >> sfe_util.c: the changes here look like yet other, unrelated changes >> (and there are more than one in here) >> sfe_util.c: line 1066, looks fishy to me. why does now need to be >> nonzero? suggests that maybe a problem exists *elsewhere* that this >> is just a bandaid for? > > Thanks, I will go through these later this evening. > > Some of these Qs will be for Masa. > >> There are a lot of changes here... too many for me to finish right >> now. I got to line 1300ish in sfe_util.c. I strongly suggest you fix >> up your bug lists, because at the moment there are a lot of fixes in >> here, and I'm having a hard time seeing all of the reasons for all of >> them. >> >> In the future, smaller, more incremental updates, are a lot easier to >> manage, rather than trying to collect up a few dozen fixes into a >> single mondo-update. > > I would have loved to provide you with a smaller, more incremental > update, however we were having problems passing the tests, and a lot > of been changing in the meantime as we move through getting a stable > driver. > > As it was, we've been held up from doing the putback as sparc had some > regressions, and while probably not used on sparc, I couldn't prove > that to jbeck. So, some of the changes are an artifact of that. > > Thanks for your help/comments though, seriously, I am sure that Masa > will be glad to get this putback. > > -- > > Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group _______________________________________________ driver-discuss mailing list driver-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
