> > What really bugs me about this is that while normally you're hard to
> > communicate with, this time you have actively _lied_ about the patches on
> > IRC and in email about how they will cause IDE corruption etc due to
> > timing changes.
>
> Before I truley reply to this statement above, would you like to recant it?
>
> > No such timing changes existed, and whenever you were asked about what was
> > actually actively _wrong_ with the patches, you didn't reply.
>
> Here I question the taking of a patch 12 which altered the behavior of the
> subsystem baseclock to setting up PIO timings for the executing command
> block operations. I then looked over the patch again and saw you had not
> taken it yet.
>
> In that private email, I clearly stated I made a mistake in reading what
> was accepted into 2.5.5. The fact is you had not accepted it yet.
> However I expect you will take it. Given that very few people in the
> world have most of the hardware that was effected by that change, and even
> less have the NDA documents on the rules, please accept the change.
Maybe then you'll want to point out how patch #12 can change any PIO
timings? I'm definitely curious ... that'd affect my VIA driver as well,
you know ...
-- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/