Bill Davidsen wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
it seems broken to manipulate xfer_mask after returning from the
driver's ->mode_filter hook.
this patch is more than just a speed-limited warning printk, afaics
I actually suggested that order because the only way the printk can be
done correctly is for it to be the very last test made. Since the mode
filter is not told what mode will be used but just subtracts modes that
are not allowed this should be safe.
Far better to have a drive which works slowly than one which works
unreliably.
That would be true if the 40 wire detection was 100% accurate!
The statement is completely correct, even though the detection may not
be. ;-)
With the current set(s) of patches to do better detection, cable
evaluation should be better. But even if not, a slow system is more
useful than one which doesn't work, crashes because of swap i/o errors, etc.
I have had problems with cable detection on my previous laptop and my
current laptop. It almost made
my systems unusable. On my current laptop I was getting a thruput of a
little over 1 mbps instead
of the 44 mbps I get with udma set to the correct value. It took hours
to upgrade my laptop from
fc5 to fc6 because of this mis detection.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
