Robert Hancock wrote:
Kuan Luo wrote:
Robert hancock wrote:
What problem does this resolve? I tested it against the cache
flush/NCQ write switching problem we've been trying to solve, and it
doesn't look like it fixes that one - if I apply this patch and then
remove the udelay(20) in sata_nv.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ping... sata_nv status is still a bit open for 2.6.24, and I would like
to move us forward a bit.
* Kuan's patch... it has been confirmed (and is needed), correct? can
someone work up a good patch for 2.6.24? The only one I ever received
was badly word-wrapped, and at t
Robert Hancock wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ping... sata_nv status is still a bit open for 2.6.24, and I would
like to move us forward a bit.
* Kuan's patch... it has been confirmed (and is needed), correct?
can someone work up a good patch for 2.6.24? The only one I ever
received was badly
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ping... sata_nv status is still a bit open for 2.6.24, and I would
like to move us forward a bit.
* Kuan's patch... it has been confirmed (and is needed), correct?
can someone work up a good patch for 2.6.24? The only one I ever