From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262482AbTDHWzr (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:55:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262507AbTDHWzr (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:55:47 -0400 Received: from nat9.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.137]:60422 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262482AbTDHWzp (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:55:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] aic7* claims all checked EISA io ranges From: James Bottomley To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-9) Date: 08 Apr 2003 18:07:08 -0500 Message-Id: <1049843229.2107.46.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > As far as the 2.4.X series is concerned, pushing has not helped. I've > seen spelling fixes and incorrorct changes get accepted from non > maintainers "instantly", while the maintainers changes are not accepted. > Considering how long it took for the last set of driver changes to make > it from -ac into kernel.org, I just assumed that this strategy was > also failing. Is that really the only way to get updates into Marcelo's > tree? I take it 2.5 is up to date, right? Because otherwise we should have seen an update notice go across linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org. This problem looks to be present in 2.5, so should I apply the patch? James