On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 thunder7@xs4all.nl wrote:
>I know it crashes some via chipsets when autotuning (IIRC), but
>if it were added behind CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL it couldn't do any
>harm, could it?
Yes it could. I personally *NEED* the IDE patches. That is NOT
good enough reason to include them in the mainstream kernel
however.
The 2.2.x IDE patches are unmaintained if I'm correct, unless
someone else has stepped up to maintain them. Vojtech Pavlik
(sp?) is maintaining the VIA portion I believe.
If the IDE patch were integrated, it would likely fall upon Alan
to manage.
Also, if it were added, then we'd hear: "Now that NFS V3, *and*
the IDE patches are in 2.2.18pre, could we *please* add the
(reiserfs | pick your favorite patch)"
>I stuck between HPT370 support in 2.4.x but non-working isdn lzs
>compression code and the reverse in 2.2.x. Just now I adapted Andre's
>2.2.18-3 patch to 2.2.18pre15, and while it was only 30 minutes work,
>I'm not clear on why that is necessary.
Because it is unmaintained? Once it is in the kernel, Alan will
be the one getting bug reports, so he should be the one to decide
ultimately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate
Computer Consultant - Capslock Consulting
Copyright 2000 all rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an open source developer? Need web space? Your own project mailing
lists? Bug tracking software? CVS Repository? Build environments?
Head over to http://sourceforge.net for all of that, and more, for free!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST