On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:58PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> > That's actually not true... At least the setting of the
> > request rq->flags is significantly different here and there.
> > However I think but I'm not sure that the fact aht we have rq->special
> > != NULL here has the hidded side effect that we indeed accomplish the
> > same semantics.
> >
> > >And yes it will be useful to move it to block layer.
> >
> > Done. Just needs testing. I have at least an ZIP parport drive, which
> > allows me to do some basic checks.
>
> Ehh, you are testing all those IDE changes with a ZIP drive connected to
> the parallel port? Don't you have any real IDE devices?? I'm sure we can
> all chip in and buy you a drive if you need one.
Would be faster to get a real maintainer, but nobody cares about actually
finishing 2.5 or they would find one that could actually make it work
proper.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
-------------------------------------------------------
2.4, has crappy code, an arse-hole maintainer, and a working safe driver.
2.5, erm "Two of Three, ain't BAD"
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:44 EST