David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 20 February 2006 8:07 am, Phillip Susi wrote:
And this is exactly how non USB hardware has behaved for eons, and it
hasn't been a problem.
How many billions of years exactly? :)
<G>
Of course it sometimes _has_ been a problem. Repeating your claim
doesn't make it true. And the user model of USB was certainly so
those problems could be _prevented_ rather than continued forever
into new generations of hardware.
But it hasn't been prevented, just changed into a less destructive, but
more prevelant problem. If you want to try to solve the problem then it
should be solved in such a way that it does not cause other problems (
breaking mounts when you suspend ) and the solution should be
generalized to all disks rather than just USB.
The fact that MS-DOS did something does not make it a good idea.
This is LKML. Pointing out when patches are overdue
can't realistically be taken as a flame; it's a
standard way of moving beyond discussion to action.
(Or helping someone self-educate about issues they
won't see until they, too, look more deeply ...)
I think you got the thread confused. The flame was:
>>> changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a
>>> member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club.
However, responding to a "request for patch" in that
way certainly does come across as a flame.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
