On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:16:15 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
pata_efar: MWDMA0 is unsupported
skipped, pending discussion (just sent email)
The discussion was there, you were not especially interested
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/26/343).
pata_hpt3x2n: fix overclocked MWDMA0 timing
skipped, pending discussion (just sent email)
ditto (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/27/257).
There were no complains so I'm pretty sure Sergei was fine with it.
pata_hpt3x3: Power Management fix
applied, on a hope and a prayer (did not see this posted to mailing
list?). It looks correct to me.
I prefer sticking to technical facts. ;)
Patch was posted to both mailing lists: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/321
pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA
applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard
kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches,
because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct
changes.
We are talking about:
pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change
is clearly documented in the patch description.
Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to
deal with?