From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752631AbXA2Xou (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:44:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752629AbXA2Xot (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:44:49 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52439 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964937AbXA2Xoq (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:44:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:43:40 -0800 From: Greg KH To: LKML , Rainer Weikusat , Oleg Verych , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: unfixed regression in 2.6.20-rc6 (since 2.6.19) Message-ID: <20070129234340.GA6881@kroah.com> References: <877ivb2kvc.fsf@semtex.sncag.com> <20070125185101.GA26279@kroah.com> <87y7nq131x.fsf@semtex.sncag.com> <20070126174828.GA28890@kroah.com> <87d54z1dhb.fsf@semtex.sncag.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:31:09AM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote: > > > From: Rainer Weikusat > > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel > > Subject: Re: unfixed regression in 2.6.20-rc6 (since 2.6.19) > > Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:34:56 +0100 > > Hallo. > > > Greg KH writes: > [] > >> Please work to see what is wrong with the existing patch. Is there > >> anything that I can do to help you out? > > > > This thing has consumed something like sixteen hours of my life in > > total, with a gain-to-be-expected of exactly zero (I don't need to run > > 'current' kernels on my work machine, I have just grown into the habit > > of doing so) and those sixteen hours cannot come back (and I even have > > had these type of discussions around 'should it rather look like math > > or rather like text' in sufficent quantities :->), so, except that I > > would be very much obliged to you if a fix for this issue could go > > into the 'official' tree rather sooner than later, no. > > It's hot here. > > I'm in similar situation (even *usb-serial* driver [TI USB] led me there;) No, not at all. Your situation is you object to the current way the USB subsystem binds devices to drivers (well, interfaces), and wish to rip the firmware out of a usb-serial driver that is working just fine right now. I still don't understand why you wish to take the firmware out and move it to userspace, why do you want to do this? Rainer's problem is a real bug in the USB driver code, which we need to work on getting fixed, vastly different from your objections. thanks, greg k-h