Re: [PATCH] libata ATA vs SATA detection and workaround.

[Brad Campbell]

> I'm still pondering what Alan was hinting at, a bit.  You (Brad) are 
> correct in pointing out that this code should only trigger for the 
> correct situations (lba48, etc.) which are only present on modern 
> drives, but...  there is still a chance that word 93 will be zero on 
> some weird (probably non-compliant) device.

I agree completely, though my feeling is that if someone plugs a device that broken into a SATA 
controller via a bridge then there "aint nuffin we can do about it" anyway and if it breaks it 
breaks. I guess we could offer the option you suggested before where we load the individual drivers 
as modules and provide a "knobble" module parm that will limit max_sectors to 200 and udma_mask to 
udma/100.
Then we get the hassle if someone wants to use it as the root device, but I guess then you move to 
an initrd and load the module from there.

How far do we want to take it?

Regards,
Brad

-
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/