From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk GOUDERS Subject: Re: [discuss] "ide=reverse" do we still need this? Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:00:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3138.1202932815@sora.hank.home> References: <20080213001506.GA13933@kroah.com> <1237.1202889295@sora.hank.home> <20080213082643.GB14098@kroah.com> Return-path: Received: from alice.et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de ([193.175.197.63]:34652 "EHLO alice.et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755404AbYBMUBV (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:01:21 -0500 In-reply-to: <20080213082643.GB14098@kroah.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: bzolnier@gmail.com, muli@il.ibm.com, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jdmason@kudzu.us, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz > Hm, so, to summarize: > - you needed this option many years ago to get a box to work properly > - you don't need this today > > So, if the option went away, you would not be inconvenienced? After having reanimated the old system and after comments of other persons I would not be inconvenienced if the option went away. The system indeed did not boot correctly without that option, because the disks appeared in a wrong order. On the other hand, I was able to (re)install bootloaders (grub as well as lilo) and after that did not need the option any more. Unfortunately, after that I was not able to reproduce the initial situation where the option was needed. Dirk