Hi, On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 06:14:56PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > I was looking into the same hotswap issue and found to my surprise that > > the debian kernel has the needed support _removed in the kernel sources_. > > Supporting and not breaking thousands of machines is more important that > supporting one.
I agree with your statement. However, I am puzzled that you claim that this only affects one machine. This patch removes quite a lot of IDs, which already makes it a lot of machines, not only one and certainly not only mine. I agree that it would be best if removing this patch again would not cause harm to other users. Could we try to eliminate this problem instead of ignoring it? If I understood correctly, the situation is: - There are two drivers which claim to support the same hardware. This should be fine in general. - They implement this slitely differently (different device names). This should also be fine in general. - The main problem seems to be that the order at which those drivers are assigned to the hardware is not fixed / cannot be specified. (See bug #419458). Do I understand this correctly? If I dont, it would be very nice to give me a hint where I can find information about the reason why this patch is included. Assuming I got it right, the question is, how the assignement of drivers can be specified or at least be fixed (as in not changing), fixing bug #419458 without removing support for PATA from ata_piix. This patch was introduced in 2.6.20. Are you sure that the original problem is still present in 2.6.26 or later kernels? > So a bug, but will not be fixed soon. Tagging correctly. Is there anything I could do to get it fixed? I assume upstream or at least other major linux distributions would have had the same problem and must have found a way around it? thanks, Frank Loeffler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
