lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 24 Feb 2002 11:23:54 +0100
FromVojtech Pavlik <>
SubjectRe: Flash Back -- kernel 2.1.111
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 08:42:37PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> > What really bugs me about this is that while normally you're hard to
> > communicate with, this time you have actively _lied_ about the patches on
> > IRC and in email about how they will cause IDE corruption etc due to
> > timing changes.
> 
> Before I truley reply to this statement above, would you like to recant it?
> 
> > No such timing changes existed, and whenever you were asked about what was
> > actually actively _wrong_ with the patches, you didn't reply.
> 
> Here I question the taking of a patch 12 which altered the behavior of the
> subsystem baseclock to setting up PIO timings for the executing command
> block operations.  I then looked over the patch again and saw you had not
> taken it yet.
> 
> In that private email, I clearly stated I made a mistake in reading what
> was accepted into 2.5.5.  The fact is you had not accepted it yet.
> However I expect you will take it.  Given that very few people in the
> world have most of the hardware that was effected by that change, and even
> less have the NDA documents on the rules, please accept the change.

Maybe then you'll want to point out how patch #12 can change any PIO
timings? I'm definitely curious ... that'd affect my VIA driver as well,
you know ...

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:24    [W:0.286 / U:0.130 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans