What patch to get stable IDE in 2.5?

What patch to get stable IDE in 2.5?

[Eric Altendorf]

A while ago a few people posted a few different patches that purported 
to patch a stable 2.4 IDE system into the 2.5 code tree...but as I 
recall other people pointed out problems in those patches.

Is there a consensus on how to get a stable IDE subsystem in the 2.5 
series kernel?

thanks

eric

-- 
"First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.
 Then they fight you.  And then you win."             -Gandhi

Re: What patch to get stable IDE in 2.5?

[Andre Hedrick]

There are no problems if you get the patch for LAD and not K dot O.

The only reason I have not updated them is because I have to release
Serial ATA 1.0 now and some where between pre-final and final I broke it.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group


On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Eric Altendorf wrote:

> 
> A while ago a few people posted a few different patches that purported 
> to patch a stable 2.4 IDE system into the 2.5 code tree...but as I 
> recall other people pointed out problems in those patches.
> 
> Is there a consensus on how to get a stable IDE subsystem in the 2.5 
> series kernel?
> 
> thanks
> 
> eric
> 
> -- 
> "First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.
>  Then they fight you.  And then you win."             -Gandhi
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: What patch to get stable IDE in 2.5?

[Jens Axboe]

On Mon, Jul 29 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> 
> There are no problems if you get the patch for LAD and not K dot O.

Sorry, but this sort of statement can't help but piss me off. I do all
the work forward porting 2.4 IDE to 2.5, then you slap a LAD label on it
(why?! To sprinkle it with "LAD Storage Consulting Group" [1] pee?) and
claim the foundation on which you stand is _broken_?

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

[1] 'group' meant more than 1, last I checked.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: What patch to get stable IDE in 2.5?

[Andre Hedrick]

Sorry about that Jens, I should have qualified it with the taskfile io
operations and the other subdrivers added and other tweaks.  I can not
comment on the legacy path as it relates to 2.5, and that was my mistake.

Corrected post:

The original TASKFILE IO transport layer for which 2.5 was to be based
upon is correct and fixed wrt to 2.5 BIO API.  Additional updates include
ide-floppy and ide-tape and a few updates to ide-scsi24.

If it were not for you bring the port forward I would not have considered
it viable.  For that I thank you for your efforts, and again I apologize
for wrongful comments do to my lack of clarity.

Also the group refers to NCITS membership, for which "The 'Hale Landis'",
is its alternate and we work togather as it relates to the paper spec.
http://www.ata-atapi.com/.  Other than that public point of record, I am
the public rep of LAD-SCG.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 29 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > 
> > There are no problems if you get the patch for LAD and not K dot O.
> 
> Sorry, but this sort of statement can't help but piss me off. I do all
> the work forward porting 2.4 IDE to 2.5, then you slap a LAD label on it
> (why?! To sprinkle it with "LAD Storage Consulting Group" [1] pee?) and
> claim the foundation on which you stand is _broken_?
> 
> Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.
> 
> [1] 'group' meant more than 1, last I checked.
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>