Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

2005-01-24 Thread Pete Zaitcev
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:48:51 +, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 14:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > I have been running with just the code portion of this patch for a while > > now, with good results (no Kconfig changes.) > > > > Pete and Matt, do you mind me ap

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

2005-01-24 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 14:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > I have been running with just the code portion of this patch for a while > now, with good results (no Kconfig changes.) > > Pete and Matt, do you mind me applying the following portion of the > patch to the kernel tree? > > > -#if !defined(CONFI

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

2005-01-20 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:49:00PM -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 02:07:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 03:40:31AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:16:44AM +0100,

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

2005-01-19 Thread Matthew Dharm
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 02:07:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 03:40:31AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > I've already seen people crippling their us

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

2005-01-19 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 03:40:31AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I've already seen people crippling their usb-storage driver with > > > enabling BLK_DEV_UB - and I doubt th