From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] remove BLK_DEV_HD_ONLY Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:14:12 +0200 Message-ID: <200805272114.12763.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20080519215357.GH17716@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080519225018.1df63bef@core> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.190]:33106 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756429AbYEZTX0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 15:23:26 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w8so1646628mue.1 for ; Mon, 26 May 2008 12:23:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080519225018.1df63bef@core> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Adrian Bunk , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Monday 19 May 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:53:57 +0300 > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > This was the oldest and most limited of the three IDE drivers we ship. > > NAK - it isn't just an IDE driver it's an MFM/RLL driver as well. It's > one of the few things suitable for rescuing ancient drives so should be > retained. I tend to disagree: - there is nothing wrong with using an older kernel for rescue operations on MFM/RLL drives - it should be relatively easy to add MFM/RLL support to IDE subsystem or libata layer (or even both) 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. Thanks, Bart