From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] pata_efar: always program master_data before slave_data Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:57:37 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20110208122314.19110.4092.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site> <20110208122409.19110.4233.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site> <20110208130701.19709cc6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110208132518.300bb098@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110208133922.6cf8142e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:35128 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753539Ab1BHN5i convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:57:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110208133922.6cf8142e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alan Cox wro= te: >> > That sounds like someone quoting religion. Documentation cite plea= se. >> >> s/religion/common sense/ > > Anyone who programs ATA controllers on the basis of common sense rath= er > than documentation, errata sheets and actually testing rather than > speculating is na=EFve. In the case of ATA more so than most hardware= =2E =46ully agreed. > Stil waiting a documentation cite for your otherwise gratuitious and > untested change Alan, I'm not doing real-time consulting with you. The code is provided in the best effort manner and it most likely will be underrated (like all ATA/IDE work is) anyway so I do not really care that much if it will be merged ever. Once it will be merged it may only mean more unpaid support time for me since some maintainers are not doing any real maintenance work these days.. Please at least respect some of my time spent on all this burdensome silly little driver differences comparisons and read the whole patch set before making comments on individual changes (which you certainly haven't done given timing of your review mails and complexity of changes)..