Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?

[Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>]

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> Hardware is CORRECTLY reporting electrical disconnects,
> but Philip is wanting Linux to ignore those reports.
> 
> 

No, not ignore, just realize that an electrical disconnection does not 
necessarily mean that the volume can no longer be accessed.

> 
> No patch possible.  Reading the other messages in that
> thread, Philip is advocating Linux ignore the USB spec.
> (Which is what _he_ appears to have been doing...)
> 

Non sequitur.  The USB spec does not say the kernel must force unmount 
the drive.

> What he has to do is more than submit a patch.  He first
> needs to lobby the USB-IF to change the USB spec, and
> get every peripheral vendor to stop shipping USB devices
> and instead switch over to "Philip-USB".  Then get all
> the billions of USB peripherals to go into the recycle
> bin and be replaced with products conforming to his
> new variant.  It all seems highly unlikely.  ;)
> 
> 
> But yes, you're right ... if he's serious about
> changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a
> member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club.
> Ideally, starting with small things.
> 


You're moving off into left field.