Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | BETTER ANSWER TO COME...... |
| |
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> I couldn't have said it better myself. > > I, for one, think the patch needs to go in. Reading Andre's real > explanation of what the patch were to do, it only seems like the 'sane' > thing to do. If something isn't following spec, it shouldn't be allowed to > pass, BOTTOM LINE. Adding in the compiletime option gives that power back, > (which would [presumably] be used for development, etc.) so what is > everyone complaining about? Andre knows best on this issue; I will stand > behind him on it.
Hi Kelsey,
Until I can get a change in the standand to protect against this, it is the best working solutiuon to protect the interest of Linux.
See NEW-POST
Thanks,
Andre Hedrick The Linux ATA/IDE guy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |