Bug#284952: The USB block device should be disabled

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:56:51PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:33:48PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > > The USB block device is known to be experimental and buggy.
> > > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB=m should be set to 'n'.
> > > 
> > > Since the ub modules takes preference of the old, though working
> > > usb-storage, hotplug loads ub.  Blacklisting ub doesn't help, loading
> > > usb-storage doesn't work either.
> > > I really would like for UB to be disable until proven reasonably stable.
> > 
> > Can someone merge this bug with #283852, plz? I'm unsure which of them
> > to reassign.

I wonder about this, would it not be enough to blacklist the UB generated
modules in hotplug and/or discover ? 

> The merge thing doesn't work well with the way we
> have multiple source packages for the kernel. 
> 
> It seems that this problem actually effects the following
> source packages.
> 
> kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha-2.6.10
> kernel-image-2.6.10-ia64-2.6.10
> kernel-image-2.6.9-amd64-2.6.9
> kernel-image-2.6.9-ia64-2.6.9
> kernel-image-2.6.9-sparc-2.6.9
> kernel-patch-2.6.10-mips-2.6.10
> kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.10-2.6.10
> kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.9-2.6.9
> 
> Would it be of value to duplicate, say #283852,
> assign one copy to each of these source packages,
> and then merge #283852 with #284952 on one package,
> say kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.9-2.6.9, where
> at one of the bugs originated.
> 
> Also, sould I go through and fix the config
> in svn, even though I can't build for any of these
> architectures?

Fine with me, but see above.

Friendly,

Sven Luther