| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:10:07 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, bzolnier@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/68] ide2libata On 02/01/2010 06:17 AM, David Miller wrote: > And then once that hard work is done, we kind of just toss it > for one side of the equation? [...] On 02/01/2010 08:14 AM, David Miller wrote: > I have not advocated the ifdef implementation. > > I have advocated one where the data structures are actually > the same, and there are no ifdefs. It all sounds like the exact opposite of what you said seven months ago: I'm going to treat IDE as pure legacy, rather than as competition with the PATA drivers which is what people whould be moving over to. And more importantly I refuse to apply any driver patch that isn't actually tested on said hardware. It's either legacy, or it isn't. It's either bug-fixes-only, or it isn't. Touching, quite literally, _100%_ of the IDE drivers does not meet the criteria of "pure legacy" nor likely "actually tested on said hardware." But hey... if you want to accept patches slowly turning IDE into libata, that's your call :) It just seems quite contrary to what has been sold to the remaining IDE users. Jeff -- 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