Re: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

> On 10/13/2011 04:03 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes
> >
> > Fix display of pio_mode, dma_mode and xfer_mode device attributes.
> >
> > before:
> > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode
> > XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_UDMA_3, XFER_UDMA_2, XF
> > ER_UDMA_1, XFER_UDMA_0, XFER_MW_DMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_3, XFER_MW_DMA_2, XFER_SW_DMA
> > _2, XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2
> >
> > after:
> > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode
> > XFER_UDMA_6
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata |    4 ++--
> >   drivers/ata/libata-transport.c      |    2 +-
> >   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > @@ -59,12 +59,12 @@ class
> >
> >   dma_mode
> >
> > -	Transfer modes supported by the device when in DMA mode.
> > +	Transfer mode currently used by the device when in DMA mode.
> >   	Mostly used by PATA device.
> >
> >   pio_mode
> >
> > -	Transfer modes supported by the device when in PIO mode.
> > +	Transfer mode currently used by the device when in PIO mode.
> >   	Mostly used by PATA device.
> >
> >   xfer_mode
> > Index: b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static struct {
> >   	{ XFER_PIO_0,			"XFER_PIO_0" },
> >   	{ XFER_PIO_SLOW,		"XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
> >   };
> > -ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
> > +ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
> 
> "fix" or not it is an ABI change... who is impacted?  Has anyone used 
> the current, pre-patch behavior as documented?

I doubt that anyone has used it given the current incorrect behavior but lets
ask libata transport authors..