Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux-2.5.28 | From | Daniel Egger <> | Date | 25 Jul 2002 11:21:00 +0200 |
| |
Am Don, 2002-07-25 um 03.08 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > So IDE-101 equals to the small snippet of code pasted somewhere in the > > evil flamewar?
> Have you _looked_ at the full changelog? Apparently not.
I was merely requesting a bit more verbose information in your regular changelog, the whole thing is quite exhaustive but this entry didn't really fit and contained no useful information at all.
I will definitely consider reading the "full changelog" although I cannot remember having read anything about such a thing before this thread.
> The snippet was posted as part of the IDE-2.5.27 thread. Go look for it > yourself.
Exactly what I said, no?
> Most of the IDE stuff is FUD and misinformation. I've run every single > 2.5.x kernel on an IDE system ("penguin.transmeta.com" has everything on > IDE), and the main reported 2.5.27 corruption was actually from my BK tree > apparently due to the IRQ handling changes.
This is very encouraging information that had been missing from the threads at all: a success story from a person actually trusting und using this thing.
> The thing I dislike is how people who apparently haven't even read the > discussions, and didn't bother to look up the full changelog feel that > they are perfectly fine to spread FUD and misinformation about the IDE > layer.
I for one did read the discussion(s) but it's really hard to map IDE-101 to some tiny patch in a huge tree of mails.
> Do we have issues there? Yes. But there are actually _more_ problems with > people dissing the work than with the code itself.
I appreciate Martins work and even more your word on it that it's pretty stable.
Keep on the good work and let us end this thread for good.
-- Servus, Daniel [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |