On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:20:36PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:28:24AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:34:12PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:17:37AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > > Why does the calgary driver need this? Can we just use pci_get_device() > > > > > > > instead? Why do you need to walk the device list backwards? Do you get > > > > > > > false positives going forward? > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look to be performance critical so the driver can > > > > > > pci_get_device until the end and use the final hit anyway. > > > > > > > > > > That would make more sense. > > > > > > > > > > > IDE reverse is more problematic but nobody seems to use it. > > > > > > > > > > I've seen two posters say they use it. I'm wondering what it is really > > > > > solving if they use it, and why if it's really needed, scsi never had to > > > > > implement such a hack... > > > > > > > > It is no longer solving anything, just adds more pain. ;) > > > > > > > > [ The option comes from 2.2.x (so long before LABEL=/ and /dev/disk/by-id/ > > > > became popular). Some "off-board" controllers integrated on motherboards > > > > used to appear before "on-board" IDE on PCI bus so this option was meant > > > > to preserve the legacy ordering. ] > > > > > > > > Since it is valid only when "Probe IDE PCI devices in the PCI bus order > > > > (DEPRECATED)" config option is used it is already on its way out (though > > > > marking it as obsoleted would make it more explicit). > > > > > > > > I think that removing "ide=reverse" in 2.6.26 would be OK... > > > > > > Great, thanks for your blessing. I'll make up a patch and send it to > > > you for approval. > > > > How does the patch below look? I didn't want to remove the whole config > > option, as there is more to the logic than just the "reverse order" > > stuff there. > > looks fine, > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks. > > If you don't mind, can I take this through the PCI tree so as to allow > > the removal of this pci function afterwards? > > [...] > > great, could you also: > - rebase it on top of the patch below > - forward the patch below to Linus for 2.6.25 Sure, you want this to go in for .25, but not the one I just posted removing this option, correct? That should wait for .26? thanks, greg k-h - 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
