[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912032242.05785.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 22:42:05 +0100
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes
On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:16:15 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > pata_efar: MWDMA0 is unsupported
>
> skipped, pending discussion (just sent email)
The discussion was there, you were not especially interested
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/26/343).
> > pata_hpt3x2n: fix overclocked MWDMA0 timing
>
> skipped, pending discussion (just sent email)
ditto (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/27/257).
There were no complains so I'm pretty sure Sergei was fine with it.
> > pata_hpt3x3: Power Management fix
>
> applied, on a hope and a prayer (did not see this posted to mailing
> list?). It looks correct to me.
I prefer sticking to technical facts. ;)
Patch was posted to both mailing lists: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/321
> > pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA
>
> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard
> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches,
> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct
> changes.
We are talking about:
pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change
is clearly documented in the patch description.
Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to
deal with?
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists