Re: Linux-2.5.28

[Daniel Egger <degger@fhm.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1784 bytes --]

Am Don, 2002-07-25 um 03.08 schrieb Linus Torvalds:

> > So IDE-101 equals to the small snippet of code pasted somewhere in the
> > evil flamewar?
 
> Have you _looked_ at the full changelog? Apparently not.

I was merely requesting a bit more verbose information in your regular
changelog, the whole thing is quite exhaustive but this entry didn't
really fit and contained no useful information at all.

I will definitely consider reading the "full changelog" although I
cannot remember having read anything about such a thing before this
thread.
 
> The snippet was posted as part of the IDE-2.5.27 thread. Go look for it
> yourself.

Exactly what I said, no?

> Most of the IDE stuff is FUD and misinformation. I've run every single
> 2.5.x kernel on an IDE system ("penguin.transmeta.com" has everything on
> IDE), and the main reported 2.5.27 corruption was actually from my BK tree
> apparently due to the IRQ handling changes.

This is very encouraging information that had been missing from the
threads at all: a success story from a person actually trusting und
using this thing.

> The thing I dislike is how people who apparently haven't even read the
> discussions, and didn't bother to look up the full changelog feel that
> they are perfectly fine to spread FUD and misinformation about the IDE
> layer.

I for one did read the discussion(s) but it's really hard to map IDE-101
to some tiny patch in a huge tree of mails.

> Do we have issues there? Yes. But there are actually _more_ problems with
> people dissing the work than with the code itself.

I appreciate Martins work and even more your word on it that it's pretty
stable. 

Keep on the good work and let us end this thread for good.

-- 
Servus,
       Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]