linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] parport_pc: remove ancient, overeager quirk that disables EPP support on many chipsets

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: <201109161209.29187.leo@alaxarxa.net>
Date:	Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:09:28 +0200
From:	"Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda" <leo@...xarxa.net>
To:	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
Cc:	Adam Baker <linux@...er-net.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org,
	Nicos Gollan <gollan@...ormatik.uni-kl.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] parport_pc: remove ancient, overeager quirk that disables EPP support on many chipsets

A Dijous, 15 de setembre de 2011, Jonathan Nieder va escriure:
> Adam Baker wrote:
> 
> > The code has sat around for a long time because when I first posted the 
patch 
> > I got no feedback to indicate if anyone else was suffering from the bug 
and if 
> > anyone else had hardware that exhibited the bug it was supposed to fix so 
I 
> > didn't want to pursue submitting it. Over the years I have seen occasional 
> > reports of users suffering from the problem but I no longer have any EPP 
> > hardware to test it on.
> >
> > That's why I posted the mail that said if someone else can verify the 
patch is 
> > still useful I'm happy for it to be submitted with my signed off by on it
> 
> Makes sense.  Thanks for explaining and thanks for your work, Adam.
> Actually I think 3 years before a patch gets the attention it deserves
> is not so bad --- it was mostly that the problem has been known since
> 1999 that bothered me. :)
> 

Well, 

seems that the questions be clarified. I would like to point some details. 
First of all I would like to say that I didn't make this patch. It was done by 
Adam Baker, as I have posted in all the mails with the link to the original 
post.

I put a bug report the the debian bug tracking system [1] with a copy to the  
linux-parport list. The debian guys ( Jonathan Nieder) proposed me to send 
this patch directly to the linux kernel system.

I have send this patch as I could, maybe I didn't pay so attention as I must. 
I send the patch because Adam Baker said:

<quote>
As the parport driver is currently orphaned you need to post a patch to the 
LKML if you want to get it included in mainline but if your prepared to do 
some testing that would be the best solution for everyone.
</quote>

I submitted the patch because it seemed impolite to ask Adam Baker that he did 
it. In the end it was I who had interest in it to be included in the kernel 
tree.

And as I was who had to answer the mails of the kernel list and make the whole 
procedure of the kernel patches, so I signed it. 

To me is perfect that this patch goes to the kernel and I could answer any 
question of it, or make any test. I have several Dell boxes and a PCI with an 
extra parport.

Best regards,

Leo

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630593
-- 
--
Linux User 152692
Catalonia
--
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/