[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120515151849.54a12175@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:18:49 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDD: Check for correct EDD 3.0 length
On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:12:14 +0300
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I do not see support for other spec to be important, but you are welcome
> > > to write support for it if you need it. The only way I see to check what
> > > spec edd info corresponds to is to calculate checksum according to both
> > > specs and see which one succeeds.
> >
> > No it doesn't work like that. This is a regression for existing working
> > systems. It needs to be reverted or fixed. If it was a new feature you'd
> > have a point - but it isn't. You've broken stuff, undo the breakage.
> >
> Code never supported anything but EDD4.0 spec. I checked history git.
> Code erroneously tried to interpret EDD3.0 info according to EDD4.0 spec
> providing garbage as a result.
Providing some valid data and info, which has now disappeared.
So I still think this is a regression. It wants fixing properly and that
patch should be reverted until it has been done right.
--
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