On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Justin Madru wrote: > Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > > > If 12609 is truly a post-2.6.28 regression and 12263 is post-2.6.27 > > regresssion, this just cannot be. > > Maybe the reporter of #12609 didn't notice/test kernels 28-rc1 to 28. Or maybe > the difference in hardware is > the issue, but the bug is still the same. Don't know. Sorry Justin, you must be confused: as Sergei says, #12609 and #12263 can only be different. I was one of the reporters of #12609, and I do know it's a post-2.6.28 regression (and Larry said so too), and one fix (not the preferred fix) is to revert the ata_bmdma32_port_ops from 2.6.29-rc, and the preferred fix is to improve the ata_sff_data_xfer32() introduced in 2.6.29-rc1. 2.6.28 does not contain any ata_bmdma32_port_ops, nor ata_sff_data_xfer32(), not did 2.6.28-rc1 contain them. So it is impossible for the reversion of the patch that introduced them to fix any problem on 2.6.28. I'm quite prepared to believe that your #12263 manifests similarly to #12609, and that a tip tree which contains a fix for #12609 contains a fix for #12263; but please, those bugs are not the same, and they don't have the same fix. Hugh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
