On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:16:15 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > > pata_efar: MWDMA0 is unsupported > > skipped, pending discussion (just sent email) The discussion was there, you were not especially interested (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/26/343). > > pata_hpt3x2n: fix overclocked MWDMA0 timing > > skipped, pending discussion (just sent email) ditto (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/27/257). There were no complains so I'm pretty sure Sergei was fine with it. > > pata_hpt3x3: Power Management fix > > applied, on a hope and a prayer (did not see this posted to mailing > list?). It looks correct to me. I prefer sticking to technical facts. ;) Patch was posted to both mailing lists: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/321 > > pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA > > applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard > kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches, > because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct > changes. We are talking about: pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change is clearly documented in the patch description. Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to deal with? -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
