Grant Grundler <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:36:55PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > >Jeff, can you please suggest how this patch should be altered to make it
> > >acceptable?
> > Answer hasn't changed since this was last discussed: sleep, rather than
> > delay for an extra-long time. That's the only hurdle for the tulip
> > patches you keep resending.
> > Francois Romieu even had an untested patch that attempted this, somewhere.
> Yes, he implemented a workqueue to invoke tulip_select_media().
> His patch didn't deal with the same issue in tulip_restart_rxtx()
> as noted here:
> Otherwise, it was mostly ok - just some other nits.
> Last reply on that thread was Oct 2005: "an updated version is cooking".
Might help to cc him.
Look, we really don't care who writes the patch.