--- On Wed, 3/23/11, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I put the original patch in on the understanding from both > of you that > the chances of finding a USB device which crashed with the > change was > very small. Bottomley, obviously there are no guarantees in life. This is what bug fixes and code development is all about. It's all about making things better for for a wider range of NEW devices. > Given that several have been found and we're on the eve of > the merge window closure, It wouldn't have mattered it if was found two weeks ago or in a month. > I'll just revert the original, Obviously you don't have to do that if you applied Alan patch. > and you two can work on getting a bullet proof version for the next > merge window. Here is what happened: I submitted a patch and it was generally liked. To refresh your memory here is the thread: http://marc.info/?t=129044508400003&r=1&w=2. The patch was applied. Then an odd device was found, as reported by Alan, who fixed it, and submitted a patch. He agreed that his patch works on top of mine to fix the problem. It was verified to fix the problem by Richard. Then I agreed with Alan that his patch works on top of mine to fix the problem by acking it as you can see in this thread. So Alan and I have both agreed that this is, at the moment, a "bullet-proof" version for this and any other merge window. Having said that, you should be aware that no patch is "bullet-proof", neither is the SCSI Layer, nor is the Linux kernel. That is, as technology goes forward. If you prefer to revert the original patch, I can resubmit the original patch with Alan's patch on top of it (as it is a fix for the original, larger, topic patch), and then you can apply that. Let me know what would work for you Bottomley. Luben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
