Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:11:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:11:17 -0500 Received: from mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.5.5]:3471 "EHLO mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:11:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:18:04 -0500 From: Rob Wilkens Subject: Re: [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") In-reply-to: <3E20C899.8090204@tmsusa.com> To: J Sloan Cc: linux-kernel Reply-to: robw@optonline.net Message-id: <1042341484.1033.119.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> Organization: Robert Wilkens MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5A03C0F4@xchangeserver2.storigen.com> <1042250324.1278.18.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030111020738.GC9373@work.bitmover.com> <1042251202.1259.28.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030111021741.GF9373@work.bitmover.com> <1042252717.1259.51.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030111214437.GD9153@nbkurt.casa-etp.nl> <1042322012.1034.6.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <3E20C899.8090204@tmsusa.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3562 Lines: 95 On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:44, J Sloan wrote: > I won't even begin to put together a point by > point correction, it's all too tedious, and it's > possible that you are here just to annoy and > wear down the developers anyway - I've only written a total of maybe 5-6 messages to the list, and maybe 4 of them were off topic because of a previous off-topic message by somebody else (such as yours). I don't see how "i" am specifically designed to wear down developers, though I'll apologize for any comments I made earlier about the simplicity of kernel development: I should comment that it was kernel development I was doing (professionally) when I had my first two mental breakdowns, so it should be no surprise to discover that despite the fact that superficially it seemed like easy work at the time, it can be a stress inducing kind of work which is somewhat tedious in nature (trying to get various hardware to work just right, or reversing bit/byte orders for various platforms or that sort of thing). > Please start sending in patches or discussing > kernel code, or even doing testing - if not, you > might wish to seek out a different forum for > your messages, where you might find a more > receptive audience - I'll refrain from making > specific suggestions at this time. I fixed a bug in my kernel (2.4.20), and here's the unified diff with the hack I put in place, it's not a fix because I don't know enough about the floppy driver to fix it the right way--- it's called a hack. I'm sure if I looked at the problem longer I could fix it right, but it looks like in 2.5.56 the floppy driver has been rewritten somewhat, but the problem, I believe, is still there and reproducable (code to reproduce it is below). <---Begin---> --- floppy.c.orig 2003-01-07 21:51:49.000000000 -0500 +++ floppy.c 2003-01-10 15:54:56.000000000 -0500 @@ -3874,7 +3874,7 @@ UCLEARF(FD_DISK_CHANGED); if (cf) UDRS->generation++; - if (NO_GEOM){ + if (/*NO_GEOM*/1){ /* auto-sensing */ int size = floppy_blocksizes[MINOR(dev)]; if (!size) <---End---> Please note that the above error fixes the following test case. IF you have no floppy in the A: drive and run the following test.c code repeatedly you will find you get different results every time you run it. I left the commented sections in the code to illustrate that it only happens with fd0u1440 as opposed to fd0. <---Begin---> #include #include #include #define O_LARGEFILE 0100000 main() { int fd,bits; /* fd=open("/dev/fd0",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);*/ /*fd=open("/dev/fd0",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_LARGEFILE);*/ fd=open("/dev/fd0u1440",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_LARGEFILE); printf ("fd=%d\n",fd); perror("error was: "); } <---End---> Note that O_LARGEFILE isn't meaningful, it was put there because I was imitating a system call that I saw the "dd" command making when doing an "strace" (System Call Trace) do when it was failing. This is a silly and trivial bug, but someone reported it. Until I get some acknowledgement of any kind on my first kernel patch submittal, it seems silly to submit more, even if the acknowledgement is someone telling me "try to fix it the right way so it doesn't break anything else" which may involve adding a few more lines of code. -Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/