On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:28:51 +0300 Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote > > secondary CFA test and posted a patch set to improve this, but which > > removed the version checks. > > And did that completely correctly. In your opinion but as I've pointed out that seems incorrect so simply repeating ad-nauseum that your patch is correct isn't helpful. > > This patch keeps the version checks but incorporates the other suggestions > > Sergei made including a better ata version check for the usual case where > > we want to know "is version >= x" rather than "what version do you > > support". > > Improvements should be mixed with fixes. They were. Which is better than correcting things while intentionally adding flaws by removing sanity checks. > Refer to the CF specs (google for cfspc<x_><y>.pdf) as to why it's wrong. I've read the CF specs back to 1.1, and the ATA specs back to ATA-1. Prior to ATA-3 you can't rely on the test in question. -- 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
