linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/64] ide: use standard timing for XFER_PIO_SLOW mode in ide_timing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201001192125.25358.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:25:25 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	sshtylyov@...mvista.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/64] ide: use standard timing for XFER_PIO_SLOW mode in ide_timing_compute()

On Tuesday 19 January 2010 08:48:16 pm David Miller wrote:
> From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:42:57 +0300
> 
> >   But shouldn't this just be merged to "ide: use standard timing for
> >   XFER_PIO_SLOW mode in ide_timing_compute()" since it's the patch that
> >   introduced that check?
> 
> It's fine either way.
> 
> I can break the ide-next-2.6 tree for everyone by rebasing it to
> unwind the 50 or so patches I applied from Bart yesterday to do this,
> but really is that pain worth it since right thing is there in the
> end?

Especially since the new patch is a pure documentation fix
in the practice (the old code happens to work fine anyway)..

--
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/