From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752969AbXDEEN6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:13:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161131AbXDEEN6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:13:58 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.246]:48419 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751744AbXDEEN4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:13:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ihHfN5pdrDxLO9w1f9mfZ5ciJt5oSxBkNrOcaIgCW+2lU5IMXpJ1kZA4SQxAm5yXMNagWCSjndHDQpx0S2SP1RKQ6tWZzO+WpY6xTMsPk1pbHvBSv5KRq81zHNumZeQKVpc+5CLaWfAEwztVQ7Y4Fvu64cgE7yLr0MeaR5zJpsE= Message-ID: <75b66ecd0704042113mebd1275w2fa40bf159416811@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:13:55 -0400 From: "Lee Revell" To: "Bill Davidsen" Subject: Re: 2.6.20.3 AMD64 oops in CFQ code Cc: "Tejun Heo" , linux@horizon.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, cebbert@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-kernel@dale.us, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <46143338.3020808@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070323174630.31051.qmail@science.horizon.com> <4611EADC.3000306@suse.de> <46143338.3020808@tmr.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 58740fb22d4f5f8a Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/4/07, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I won't say that's voodoo, but if I ever did it I'd wipe down my > keyboard with holy water afterward. ;-) > > Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a > last ditch effort after something get very wrong. Would it reallty be an impediment to development if the kernel maintainers simply refuse to merge patches that add new sysfs entries without corresponding documentation? Lee