Hi Nico, thanks for the quick reply, On Wed, Mar 02 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > No, I have nothing better to suggest at the moment. Okay. I'll add a comment explaining what's going on. >> And, just to check we're all on the same page, this would be a >> regression introduced back at 2.6.32 when the "oldcard" handling >> was first merged, so it should be sent up with a stable tag. > > Depends how you define a regression. If the "oldcard" handling always > screwed up the rca, then it simply never was right, hence it is hard to > claim it worked better before. Probably this just worked so far by luck, > or those cards tested with this code don't change their rca. Yes, it's never been right under the "oldcard" handling which was merged in 2.6.32. I agree with your guesses on why it wasn't noticed before. >> (I'm not yet sure whether I want to send this to mainline during the >> last week of a release and without any previous testing, given that >> the bug is more than a year old already. Let's see what Nico says.) > > I'd queue this for the next merge window only, and not risk introducing > a real regression in v2.6.38 at the last moment by making things worse > somehow. Thanks, that exactly matches my intuition on what to do. I'll push it to mmc-next now and add a stable@ tag. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
