From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: implement ata_dev_enabled and disabled() Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:57:32 +0900 Message-ID: <20060325235732.GA23222@htj.dyndns.org> References: <11431815313764-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <44240A67.7030001@pobox.com> <1143215493.18986.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060325011432.GE5288@htj.dyndns.org> <4424C12B.7070106@pobox.com> <20060325054008.GG5288@htj.dyndns.org> <20060325061215.GH5288@htj.dyndns.org> <1143330895.28134.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.239]:49795 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751078AbWCYX5l (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:57:41 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 37so1216501wra for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:57:40 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1143330895.28134.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Jeff Garzik , albertcc@tw.ibm.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 11:54:55PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sad, 2006-03-25 at 15:12 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > This patch renames ata_dev_present() to ata_dev_enabled() and adds > > ata_dev_disabled(). This is to discern the state where a device is > > present but disabled from not-present state. This disctinction is > > necessary when configuring transfer mode because device selection > > timing must not be violated even if a device fails to configure. > > This breaks the expected behaviour of ata_dev_pair(). I'd rather kept > the existing behaviour of ata_dev_present for the moment until we can > figure out what we need to do for "present but not enabled". That should > also fit the scsi layer expectations so we can correctly "offline" a > device. > Hello, Alan. Can you elaborate how ata_dev_pair() is broken by this patch? ata_dev_present() is simply renamed to ata_dev_enabled(). ata_dev_disabled() only differenciates the conditions where ata_dev_present() used to think there was no device. There should be no behavior change to existing code. Thanks. -- tejun