Hi, On 27 June 2013 21:11, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 09:59 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote: >> Update MAINTAINERS to reflect recent changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <sha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 4 ++++ >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index 5be702c..b447392 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -6146,10 +6146,14 @@ F: drivers/firmware/pcdp.* >> >> PCI ERROR RECOVERY >> M: >> +M: Gavin Shan <sha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Remove Linas, he isn't involved anymore as far as I can tell > (are you ?)
Not involved any more; I don't have access to equipment, don't have time, expertise is fading. >> L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org >> +L: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org >> S: Supported >> F: Documentation/PCI/pci-error-recovery.txt >> F: Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt >> +F: arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh*.c >> +F: drivers/pci/pcie/aer/ > > Not sure about the AER code. You are not maintaining *that* at least :-) > Maybe we should split EEH from the rest ? Based on recent discussions (a month ago?) regarding AER, its clear that at least some of the AER code is mis-designed, and that some of the patches being submitted against it were making things worse. I suggest keeping an eye on that ... the problem is that both AER and EEH share a common framework in the PCI subsystem. As bugs in AER get discovered, there's a chance that someone will submit a patch to the common framework, or possibly start modifying assorted drivers, which will then break EEH ... so I don't think it is wise/safe to ignore AER. (The point is that AER and EEH really should work exactly the same; they differ merely by how they talk to the root port). -- Linas _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
