From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Levente Kurusa Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: provide the ability to disable a disk via the params. Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:36:55 +0100 Message-ID: <52AA1E67.6000801@linux.com> References: <1386464187-6993-1-git-send-email-robbat2@gentoo.org> <20131212133935.GA32683@htj.dyndns.org> Reply-To: Levente Kurusa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Robin H. Johnson" , Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hi, Robin. 2013-12-12 21:22, Robin H. Johnson: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, Robin. >> >> On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 04:56:27PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>> + { "disable", .horkage_on = ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE }, >>> + { "nodisable", .horkage_off = ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE }, >> Given the current usage of ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE, I don't think we need >> "nodisable". Let's just add "disable" for now. Can you please update >> the patch and resend? > Before I do so, I have two questions: > 1. > Countering your nodisable comment, would it be valid to do: > libata.force=2:disable libata.force=2.02:nodisable > To disable all of port 2 except device 2? I think that makes sense and I support having 'nodisable'. > > 2. One of my friends wondered if it would be worthwhile to add force > keywords for other HORKAGE bits, and if so, should the > ata_lflag/ata_link force bits also be presented? I don't think so. Most of the other HORKAGEs are automatically recognized and applied by the code. I think the only ones which can cause trouble if not detected at first are the ones that are currently in the list. -- Regards, Levente Kurusa