On Friday 19 December 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > > Sure, we can always improve things further later. However Mario's patch > > is _definitely_ an improvement over the _current_ code. Don't you agree? > > No actually I don't. The current head dev code checks ATA > 7 as the > indicator that this bit is used for treacherous computing. That means the > behaviour for all the older drives is clearly back compatible with old > Linux behaviour. > > Doing it that way around means we don't have any worries about changing > existing behaviours. Please try to verify old Linux behaviour compatiblity statement with some ATA-[2..7] devices... They have old ATA-1 bit set to _zero_... Mario: I don't have anymore time to spend on fixing libata problems so I'll be leaving ata_id_has_dword_io() issues up to libata maintainers, sorry for inconvenience! Thanks, Bart -- 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
