Comment 166 for bug 296610

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:36:14AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:23:12PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> > I am a bit uncertain about this patch in stable from the view of
> > regression avoidance. Looking over the patch its hard to tell for
> > certain whether the path of execution is the same as before for the
> > non-interleaved protocol. Dmitry, how do you feel about it? Or
> > maybe there has even be positive testing with non-interleaved
> > hardware with that patch.
>
> Umm, it is a bit large for -stable to my taste. However without the
> patch the affected laptops are pretty much unusable so I think we better
> get it in. The non-interleaved devices should continue to work fine, at
> least I don't see any adverse effects on my d630 (caveat - I am not
> using _this_ version of the patch but rather what is currently in Linus's
> tree).

I agree, the interleaved protocol support is awfully high-impact for
-stable. However as you've observed, the affected machines are really
unusable without some fix.

Personally I'm fine maintaining the backport locally, but it'd be nice
to fix this for Karmic as well.

I'll do some testing on non-Dell hardware tomorrow.

-andy