On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:22:44 +0900 Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:35:01 +0900 > > Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Make CFA SETXFER failure handling into HORKAGE. This will be used to > >> allow other cases to ignore SETXFER failure. > > > > NAK > > > >> + /* Old CFA may refuse SETFEATURES_XFER, which > >> + * is just fine > >> + */ > >> + if (!(xfer_mask & ~ATA_MASK_PIO)) > >> + dev->horkage |= ATA_HORKAGE_SETXFER; > >> + } else > > > > This is specifically done for PIO. An XFER failure for non PIO modes is a > > serious failure and happens in the real world sometimes. > > Hmmm... That's what "if (!(xfer_mask & ~ATA_MASK_PIO))" test was for. > Or is it not enough? Actually you are correct the test is sufficient because we can't end up adding modes later. Un-NAK ;) Alan - 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
