Re: [PATCH 00/68] ide2libata

[Jeff Garzik]

On 02/01/2010 06:17 AM, David Miller wrote:
> And then once that hard work is done, we kind of just toss it
> for one side of the equation?
[...]

On 02/01/2010 08:14 AM, David Miller wrote:
> I have not advocated the ifdef implementation.
>
> I have advocated one where the data structures are actually
> the same, and there are no ifdefs.

It all sounds like the exact opposite of what you said seven months ago:

	I'm going to treat IDE as pure legacy, rather than as
	competition with the PATA drivers which is what people whould
	be moving over to.

	And more importantly I refuse to apply any driver patch that
	isn't actually tested on said hardware.

It's either legacy, or it isn't.  It's either bug-fixes-only, or it 
isn't.  Touching, quite literally, _100%_ of the IDE drivers does not 
meet the criteria of "pure legacy" nor likely "actually tested on said 
hardware."

But hey...  if you want to accept patches slowly turning IDE into 
libata, that's your call :)  It just seems quite contrary to what has 
been sold to the remaining IDE users.

	Jeff



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/