Hello.
Alan Cox wrote:
The word 82 validity bit is not sufficient as that bit is itself not
There's no word 82 validity bits, its validity bits are in word 83.
Word 83 sorry - I seem to have 82 and 83 bit flipped in my brain, not
good for ATA work ;)
defined in ATA < 3. Otherwise the change looks correct.
Well, then we need to fix every case of using *only* the validity bits in
ata.h.
No reason to go removing ones that are correct
You've just effectively claimed them to be incorrect with your claim what
validity bits are not sufficient and ATA revision must be checked. Check the
source please -- I wouldn't have dropped the revision check if the rest of the
inlines that check word 82/82 were using it.
MBR, Sergei
--
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
