Hello, On 05/13/2010 06:06 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > I'm not sure this is such a good interface ... it sounds very error > prone for what is effectively a binary lock/unlock. Well, the original block interface was like that. It has been used as binary switch tho. The requested capacity is always ~0ULL and return value smaller than the current capacity is ignored. I'm all for dropping the capacity parameter and the return value from ->set_capacity() so that it just unlocks native capacity and directly sets the new capacity. Jens? > Instead of just saying unlock the HPA and show me the new capacity > (with a rescan), you have to echo the right number of sectors to the > set_capacity variable. Isn't a hpa_unlock libata specific attribute > better (you could even call BLKRRPART from the user context of the > write)? Hmmm... I lost you. What are you talking about? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
