On Thu, 17 May 2007 09:02:20 EDT, Ben Collins said: > > So we just have to live with it, and the infinitesimal speed hit it > > creates :) > > Any objection to adding it to planned-for-removal and spitting out a > printk when someone uses the "feature"? Do we have any good reason to believe that this will eventually lead to a clean-up? ISTR that we did a similar printk for sysctl (or as Dr. Phil likes to say, "How's that working for you?")
Attachment:
pgpjRTuejTrVU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- From: Ben Collins <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- From: Ben Collins <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- From: Ben Collins <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] INPUT: Sanitize PIT locking in pcspkr
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver
- Index(es):