On 8/14/05, Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sul, 2005-08-14 at 17:56 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > * your stuff was accepted after all (and some stuff like ide-cd
> > fixes was never splitted from the -ac patchset and submitted)
>
> They were.
I remember discussion about end-of-media ide-cd fixes but the patch
was never submitted. If you have *URL* to the patch I'll work on the patch.
> > * you've never provided any technical details on "the stuff I broke"
>
> I did, several times. I had some detailed locking discussions with
> Manfred and others on it as a result. The locking in the base IDE is
> still broken, in fact its become worse - the random locking around
> timing changes now causes some PIIX users to see double spinlock debug
> with the base kernel as an example.
Huh? *WHICH* my patch causes this?
I don't remember this discussion et all, care to give some pointers?
> > > Would make sense, but I thought I had the right bits masked. Will take a
> >
> > WIN_RESTORE is send unconditionally (as it always was),
> >
> > This is not the right thing, somebody should go over all ATA/ATAPI
> > drafts and come with the correct strategy of handling WIN_RESTORE.
>
> Ok that would make sense. Matthew Garrett also reported some problems in
> that area with suspend/resume (BIOS restoring its idea of things...)
Quite likely, WIN_RESTORE is not sent on resume etc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |