[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140710170954.GB23544@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:09:54 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey@....msu.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org,
hsommer@....org, matwey.kornilov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:56:15AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:01:51AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> >>>From cf37d0cc4d51da5c0b368e1f5ab05082c041d1e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>From: "Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey.kornilov@...il.com>
> >>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:08:45 +0400
> >>Subject: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc.
> >>
> >>The detection of Intel EPP bug is known to produce much false positives.
> >>The new option is introduced to force enable EPP in spite of the test result.
>
> Hi,
>
> First of all, maybe I missed something fundamental, or did something wrong,
> but I can't understand how is it going to break working systems?
I thought you disabled the quirk test and now rely on the module option
instead. That would require a machine that was happily relying on the
quirk test to now be forced to add a module option, right?
Or did I read the patch incorrectly?
Why not implement Alan's suggestion?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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