From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lee Revell" Subject: Re: 2.6.20.3 AMD64 oops in CFQ code Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: <75b66ecd0704042113mebd1275w2fa40bf159416811@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070323174630.31051.qmail@science.horizon.com> <4611EADC.3000306@suse.de> <46143338.3020808@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46143338.3020808@tmr.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Tejun Heo , linux@horizon.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, cebbert@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-kernel@dale.us, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 4/4/07, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I won't say that's voodoo, but if I ever did it I'd wipe down my > keyboard with holy water afterward. ;-) > > Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a > last ditch effort after something get very wrong. Would it reallty be an impediment to development if the kernel maintainers simply refuse to merge patches that add new sysfs entries without corresponding documentation? Lee