On Thu, Oct 09 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >> > >> Locking improvements in preparation for replacing the global ide_lock > >> spinlock by per-hwgroup spinlocks [1]. > >> > >> [1] patch (which is partially based on 2005 patch from Scalex86) for this > >> is also ready but it needs some more audit and testing > >> > >> diffstat: > >> drivers/ide/ide-cd.c | 38 ++++++------- > >> drivers/ide/ide-io.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > >> drivers/ide/ide-ioctls.c | 3 - > >> drivers/ide/ide-lib.c | 7 -- > >> drivers/ide/ide-proc.c | 25 +-------- > >> drivers/ide/ide.c | 7 -- > >> 6 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) > > > > Sorry, but I just have to ask 'why'? IDE is seeing a whole lot of churn > > for something that should essentially be a stable code base in > > maintenance mode, and now scalability improvements? > > It is the stable code but being in "maintenance only mode" has never > been true and as long as there are active users & developers there is > really no reason to change it. Well, maybe then it's just me who thinks that it definitely SHOULD be in deep maintenance mode... > > Just doesn't make ANY sense to me, sorry. We may end up with a cleaner > > code base, but likely also a buggier one. It's not like hardware > > coverage testing is all that great, considering some of the ancient > > stuff it supports :-) > > The changes above are relatively safe/simple and are not hardware specific. > > Thanks for worring about IDE but we should be fine. :) > > Bart -- Jens Axboe -- 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
