On 8/14/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sul, 2005-08-14 at 17:56 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > * your stuff was accepted after all (and some stuff like ide-cd > > fixes was never splitted from the -ac patchset and submitted) > > They were.
I remember discussion about end-of-media ide-cd fixes but the patch was never submitted. If you have *URL* to the patch I'll work on the patch. > > * you've never provided any technical details on "the stuff I broke" > > I did, several times. I had some detailed locking discussions with > Manfred and others on it as a result. The locking in the base IDE is > still broken, in fact its become worse - the random locking around > timing changes now causes some PIIX users to see double spinlock debug > with the base kernel as an example. Huh? *WHICH* my patch causes this? I don't remember this discussion et all, care to give some pointers? > > > Would make sense, but I thought I had the right bits masked. Will take a > > > > WIN_RESTORE is send unconditionally (as it always was), > > > > This is not the right thing, somebody should go over all ATA/ATAPI > > drafts and come with the correct strategy of handling WIN_RESTORE. > > Ok that would make sense. Matthew Garrett also reported some problems in > that area with suspend/resume (BIOS restoring its idea of things...) Quite likely, WIN_RESTORE is not sent on resume etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
