Re: Parallel ATA with libata status with the patches I'm working on

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On 11/3/05, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > IMO porting/rewriting host-drivers to libata now is just
> > counter-productive waste of time...
>
> That would only make sense if you consider all PATA obsolete/dead
> (do you? I'm sometimes not sure).

I want to merge old IDE driver w/ libata... and drop remaining crap on the way.
If libata gains full PATA support before I do this - it is even better for me...

> I don't and (unable to use old IDE due to hot-plug issues) am thankful
> for Alan's efforts.

Do you think that libata is currently so much better wrt to PATA
hot-(un)plug support?

If so than dream on...

> Yes, I think it's similar to OSS-ALSA, WRT - you know, 6-months forward
> notice etc :-)

Ain't going to happen...

Guys, I'm not against libata PATA support - I'm all for it but I want
TRANSPARENT development and FAIR look at current state of affairs
(there is still a lot of stuff on libata's PATA TODO)...

Plus I don't like needless bashing of IDE driver which is still messy
but orders of magnitude less than during 2.4.x days... :-)

Bartlomiej
-
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/