2014-07-10 21:09 GMT+04:00 Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:56:15AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Greg KH wrote: >> >> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:01:51AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: >> >>>From cf37d0cc4d51da5c0b368e1f5ab05082c041d1e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> >>From: "Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey.korni...@gmail.com> >> >>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:08:45 +0400 >> >>Subject: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc. >> >> >> >>The detection of Intel EPP bug is known to produce much false positives. >> >>The new option is introduced to force enable EPP in spite of the test >> >>result. >> >> Hi, >> >> First of all, maybe I missed something fundamental, or did something wrong, >> but I can't understand how is it going to break working systems? > > I thought you disabled the quirk test and now rely on the module option > instead. That would require a machine that was happily relying on the > quirk test to now be forced to add a module option, right?
No, this would not... > Or did I read the patch incorrectly? Maybe I've implemented something incorrectly? I think I suggested exactly inverse thing: the check is disabled only when the option is touched by user: !force_epp && intel_bug_present(pb) <=> intel_bug_present(pb) (given that force_epp is false) > Why not implement Alan's suggestion? Why not, if you are fine with it. Are you sure that PPro was turning point? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
