On 22/06/12 15:49, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 23:02 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >>> From: Chris Boot <[email protected]> >>> >>> commit id 59aed95263bdd0e2b48eb9be5a94346d2d4abf90 >>> Backport to 3.2-3.4 kernels >>> >>> For the 82573, ASPM L1 gets disabled wholesale so this special-case code >>> is not required. For the 82574 the previous patch does the same as for >>> the 82573, disabling L1 on the adapter. Thus, this code is no longer >>> required and can be removed. >> [...] >> >> Both added to the queue, thanks. > Both patches look good and the first one looks important, but why the > second one? > > I ask because each unnecessary patch that is rejected for stable@ > makes it more likely that people will have time to look over the > accepted ones.
Jonathan, It's just a cleanup patch really. The code that's removed in the second patch conditionally disables ASPM L1 if jumbo frames are enabled, but the first patch disables ASPM L1 for all cases regardless of frame size. So the code in the second patch simply doesn't do anything at all once the first patch is applied, other than warn the user multiple times that ASPM is being disabled when it already has been disabled. HTH, Chris -- Chris Boot [email protected] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
