From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: Some IDE issues with 2.6.28 on PC-Engines ALIX2 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:38:37 +0100 Message-ID: <200901051838.37608.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <49615667.9020408@iwl.com> <200901051815.24847.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20090105171935.4e0c077e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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 ([209.85.134.184]:44458 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752336AbZAERj1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:39:27 -0500 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so2894266muf.1 for ; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:39:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090105171935.4e0c077e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , Karl Auerbach , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, karl@cavebear.com, "Martin K. Petersen" On Monday 05 January 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > > Both are done by block layer. The former is controlled by the user-space > > while the latter is controlled by the block driver. > > And in the old IDE case erroneously set for any device reporting CFA via > the kernel. Queue flag management belongs in user space because its far > more complex than you seem to think to get it right. Please stop playing straw man in almost every your mail. Doing it once in a while can be intriguing or even enjoyable but doing it on daily basis kills any sensible debate... There is nothing incorrect in setting non-rotational queue flag for CF devices [1] and I wasn't suggesting where it should belong -- I was solely describing how things look up currently. [1] in fact some SSD devices present themselves as CF devices Thanks, Bart