Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on EMBEDDED
From: Ed Tomlinson
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 07:06:01 EST
On Monday 20 December 2004 01:37, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:20:55 -0800, Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I can tell you that this has turned into the single largest source of bug
> > reports/complaints about usb-storage. Something has to be done. I just
> > don't know what.
> Is it that bad, really? Honestly, I could not imagine users can be so dumb.
> The option defaults to off. There is a warning in the Kconfig. And yet they
> first enable it and then complain about it. I don't know what to do about
> it, either.
Its not that they just enable it. Its that it has side effects. I enable it to support
one device - it then 'devnaps' other devices that usbstorage supports _much_
better. Is there some way it could work in reverse. eg. let ub bind only if
usbstorage does not, possibly making usbstorage a _little_ more conservative
if ub is present?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/