On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:49:53PM -0700, Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> > So why must an ata standard try to regulate something that simply is
> > outside of it's scope?
>
> It is not
But why? I really don't see the difference between ata and any other
standard.
> because you have no business turning on "vender-unique"
"you"?
> Since I am representing Linux on this committee, it is best that the
> standard conform generic and not specific. Thus this is a generic conform
> request.
Of course, forcing something like this is much better in the end - as it
"standardizes" vendor-specific commands in a way that allows an ever safer
migration path for the future.
> All the ATA-X means is that new drives must conform, and that drives that
> are older general assumed to have died, IMHO.
Woaw. How far away from reality ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:18 EST