On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:32:59PM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: > 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)
I don't understand, care to just resend the patches? I really don't remember what the patch said... > > Why not implement Alan's suggestion? > > Why not, if you are fine with it. Are you sure that PPro was turning point? If Alan says so, I believe him :) greg k-h -- 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/
