On Sat, 22 April 2006 21:48:28 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
>
> And really, it's not a big stretch from what the code currently does
> to what my patch changes. At this point in the code, we know for a
> fact that we already have at least one flash chip. The math that's
> going on here with the 'max_chips' variable is to check if there is
> actually more than one physical chip implementing the entire reported
> size. The only mistake is that the math goes too far, shifting the
> count down to zero if the reported size is too small. This
> 'max_chips' should never be allowed to be lower than 1, because we
> really do know that there is at least one flash chip.
In a setup like yours, someone should go and educate hardware
developers.
Anyway, if you add a CONFIG_BROKEN_HARDWARE of some sorts to your
patch and send it to the proper list ([email protected]),
I don't have a problem with your patch.
Jörn
--
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, 1918
-
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]
