Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:36:55PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >Jeff, can you please suggest how this patch should be altered to make it > > >acceptable? > > > > Answer hasn't changed since this was last discussed: sleep, rather than > > delay for an extra-long time. That's the only hurdle for the tulip > > patches you keep resending. > > > > Francois Romieu even had an untested patch that attempted this, somewhere. > > Yes, he implemented a workqueue to invoke tulip_select_media(). > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/21/69 > > His patch didn't deal with the same issue in tulip_restart_rxtx() > as noted here: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/22/6 > > Otherwise, it was mostly ok - just some other nits. > Last reply on that thread was Oct 2005: "an updated version is cooking". > Might help to cc him. Look, we really don't care who writes the patch.
