Re: [PARPORT] disable/elable_irq() in parport_claim/release().

Tim Waugh (
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:38:29 +0000 (GMT)

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> Really I think it wouldn't be a big pain for him to include everything in
> 2.3.0. So I think it's better to have only one global and big parport
> patch popular and well tested in advance. Maybe I am wrong.. ;).

It won't _be_ well tested until it's part of 2.3. Do you think the
IEEE1284 patch is well tested? I know for a fact that status readback is
'dodgy' compared to stock 2.2.2.

I don't know how many people try my patches, but I expect it's fewer than
you think. (I'm imagining that it's about 10, including you and I.)

Besides, it isn't an "all or nothing" thing. I'm happy to keep my test
stuff in one largish patch, but I'd much rather have small incremental
bits well-tested in 2.3 than introduce it all in one go and wonder where
the bugs are.


-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 24 Feb 1999 - 11:25:00 EST