Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:57:06 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATA Atapi 4.6 Release Message-ID: <m3znxs7t31.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20020617204825.GC25616@leviathan.inethouston.net> ("David W. Chapman Jr."'s message of "Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:48:25 -0500") References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020617112839.030a9ff8@popmail.ct.lodgenet.com> <20020617204825.GC25616@leviathan.inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> writes: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 11:38:01AM -0500, John Prince wrote: >> I have to say, I am a bit disappointed in the 4.6 release, as well as the >> way problems have been identified, and swept under the carpet.. > > Why didn't you express these concerns for the past few months? There have been several reports of ATA and ATAPI brokenness after the MFC. After I brought the TCQ brokenness up again at 4.6-RC time, S=F8ren fixed the boot panic I experienced, and in late May he wrote he could reproduce the other known TCQ-timeout-and-fall-back-to-PIO problem, but I've never seen anything since. But what is bringing up a known problem again of help? Do you want people to scream their problem list every week? The PRs are there, and are open, so you cannot say these concerns had not been expressed. They have indeed. And I agree with those who say that 4.6 should NOT have been released with ATA(PI) in /this/ shape. I have been told (on this list) by the RE team that the MFC cannot be backed out and that 5.0DP2 is close, and I understand they want to keep the schedule as good as possible, but all these objections do not help the regression or displeasing users. And the latter is a Bad Thing=AE. --=20 Matthias Andree To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3znxs7t31.fsf>