From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] remove BLK_DEV_HD_ONLY Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:50:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20080526205021.12ef7948@core> References: <20080519215357.GH17716@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080519225018.1df63bef@core> <200805272114.12763.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:58165 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754561AbYEZUDu (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 16:03:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200805272114.12763.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Adrian Bunk , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org > I tend to disagree: > > - there is nothing wrong with using an older kernel for rescue operations > on MFM/RLL drives Older kernels don't boot on a lot of modern hardware. > - it should be relatively easy to add MFM/RLL support to IDE subsystem > or libata layer (or even both) I'm working on a libata driver when I get bits of time but it is not trivial because stuff like device probe is totally different, multi-write/multi-read are different, some of the command set is different and even some of the task file registers are different. > If there is no consensus about hd.c removal I think that the appropriate > alternative would be to move it to drivers/block/ as it has nothing to do > with IDE subsystem code. Thats true enough. Alan