On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> I, for one, think the patch needs to go in. Reading Andre's real
> explanation of what the patch were to do, it only seems like the 'sane'
> thing to do. If something isn't following spec, it shouldn't be allowed to
> pass, BOTTOM LINE. Adding in the compiletime option gives that power back,
> (which would [presumably] be used for development, etc.) so what is
> everyone complaining about? Andre knows best on this issue; I will stand
> behind him on it.
Hi Kelsey,
Until I can get a change in the standand to protect against this,
it is the best working solutiuon to protect the interest of Linux.
See NEW-POST
Thanks,
Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST