Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-32,: Re: Linux 2.4 Status

# Re: Linux 2.4 Status

Andre Hedrick (andre@linux-ide.org)
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: James Sutherland: "Re: devfs / eth micro-problems"
- Previous message: Ian S. Nelson: "Re: Semi-Off-Topic: Closed-door development"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Linux 2.4 Status"

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
>
> > Is there a good reason why we don't have the chipset tuning enabled all
> > the time? i.e., but another way, is there a downside to having it be
> > enabled all the time?
>
> You haven't answered my question....

In the past yes now there is no reason not to default it to active tuning.
With the new get out break point for unknown north and south bridge
combinations, thinks are better.

> > It's nice if we can avoid situations where if users don't config their
> > kernels correctly with the right config options, their reward is a
> > trashed disk.... :-)

True, and this is basically covered for the early quirky combinations.

Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy

PS bone-heads or not, you have to follow the rules of data-phase services;
regardless, because the nature of the interface layer in the
hardware appears broken. You are dealing with a child that has
to be hand walked the instructions, forever. Failing to do so is
the same as telling you kid to play in the interstate.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: James Sutherland: "Re: devfs / eth micro-problems"
- Previous message: Ian S. Nelson: "Re: Semi-Off-Topic: Closed-door development"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Linux 2.4 Status"