lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectBETTER 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.079 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site