On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:56:51PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:33:48PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote: > > > The USB block device is known to be experimental and buggy. > > > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB=m should be set to 'n'. > > > > > > Since the ub modules takes preference of the old, though working > > > usb-storage, hotplug loads ub. Blacklisting ub doesn't help, loading > > > usb-storage doesn't work either. > > > I really would like for UB to be disable until proven reasonably stable. > > > > Can someone merge this bug with #283852, plz? I'm unsure which of them > > to reassign.
I wonder about this, would it not be enough to blacklist the UB generated modules in hotplug and/or discover ? > The merge thing doesn't work well with the way we > have multiple source packages for the kernel. > > It seems that this problem actually effects the following > source packages. > > kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha-2.6.10 > kernel-image-2.6.10-ia64-2.6.10 > kernel-image-2.6.9-amd64-2.6.9 > kernel-image-2.6.9-ia64-2.6.9 > kernel-image-2.6.9-sparc-2.6.9 > kernel-patch-2.6.10-mips-2.6.10 > kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.10-2.6.10 > kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.9-2.6.9 > > Would it be of value to duplicate, say #283852, > assign one copy to each of these source packages, > and then merge #283852 with #284952 on one package, > say kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.9-2.6.9, where > at one of the bugs originated. > > Also, sould I go through and fix the config > in svn, even though I can't build for any of these > architectures? Fine with me, but see above. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]