Hi,

On 27 June 2013 21:11, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 09:59 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:

quoted

Update MAINTAINERS to reflect recent changes.

Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <redacted>
---
 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 <shangw@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.

quoted

 L:   linux-pci@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