From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 22:42:05 +0100 Message-ID: <200912032242.05785.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032045.48728.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B182A9F.5090708@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B182A9F.5090708@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:16:15 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > > pata_efar: MWDMA0 is unsupported > > skipped, pending discussion (just sent email) The discussion was there, you were not especially interested (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/26/343). > > pata_hpt3x2n: fix overclocked MWDMA0 timing > > skipped, pending discussion (just sent email) ditto (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/27/257). There were no complains so I'm pretty sure Sergei was fine with it. > > pata_hpt3x3: Power Management fix > > applied, on a hope and a prayer (did not see this posted to mailing > list?). It looks correct to me. I prefer sticking to technical facts. ;) Patch was posted to both mailing lists: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/321 > > pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA > > applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard > kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches, > because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct > changes. We are talking about: pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change is clearly documented in the patch description. Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to deal with? -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz