On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:22:33PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 12:13 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:15:05PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:02:26PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Ok, that convinces me. And these patches are ok with you, right? > > > > > > I have only one comment... > > > > > > The unusual_devs.h file keeps a blank line between entries. I think this > > > series of patches adds an entry without adding a blank (spacer) line. > > > > > > It's a minor comment, and something I think you should just fix rather than > > > ask for a regeneration of the patch. > > > > Good point, I'll fix this up by hand. > > > > James, any further objection to this? > > Just what I've already said: it doesn't fix the whole problem. > > Since there's already filtering in the stor thread, just use that to > return ILLEGAL REQUEST, which is what the devices would return if their > firmware didn't crash. I thought Matt said there was no filtering there, that's the issue. > I frankly don't understand the problem with > this: it's the least invasive patch and it fixes the whole problem (with > fewer lines of code). Why invoke multiple subsystem complexity (and not > fix the entire problem) when single system simplicity will work (and fix > everything)? Matt? confused, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
