Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tejun Heo wrote:
I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for partially stolen legacy devices. We can make ->hard_port_no do the job as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited cases (first legacy port stolen).

Jeff, what do you think?


The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports.

If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it.

	Jeff


-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux