On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <patra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 10.09.2014 12:46, Tom Gundersen пишет: >> >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >> <mcg...@do-not-panic.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley >>> <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 12:16 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:38 PM, James Bottomley >>>>> <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If we want to sort out some sync/async mechanism for probing devices, >>>>>> as >>>>>> an agreement between the init systems and the kernel, that's fine, but >>>>>> its a to-be negotiated enhancement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately as Tejun notes the train has left which already made >>>>> assumptions on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, that's why it's a bug. It's a material regression impacting >>>> users. >>> >>> >>> Indeed. I believe the issue with this regression however was that the >>> original commit e64fae55 (January 2012) was only accepted by *kernel >>> folks* to be a real regression until recently. >> >> >> Just for the record, this only caused user-visible problems after >> kernel commit 786235ee (November 2013), right? > > > No. The pata-marvell (or rather libata in general) problem existed before > that.
Thanks. I have missed that. Link? Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
