From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Random libata comments... Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 08:46:22 +0900 Message-ID: <44724D4E.5010506@gmail.com> References: <447248B9.6040304@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:25932 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309AbWEVXqS (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 19:46:18 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z59so1701130pyg for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <447248B9.6040304@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" Jeff Garzik wrote: > > * I agree with others that using the "ata_drive_probe_reset" can lead to > confusion on the uses of the word "drive". Replacing that with "do" or > something else would be nice. Will do. > * As the ata_drive_probe_reset argument list continues to grow, I lean > more and more towards moving all those function pointers to struct > ata_port_operations. One of the problems with the drivers/ide layer IMO > is that the list of all hooks used is not immediately clear upon first > read, whereas with libata it is clear -- with the notable exception of > ata_drive_probe_reset(). ->error_handler() takes over all of ata_drive_probe_reset() after hotplug patchset and all ->probe_reset() related stuff are killed. The same applies to ->error_handler() though. I agree with you that the arguments are ugly, but also there are already too many non-essential operations in ata_port_operations. I was hoping something can be done to resolve both issues. I'm okay with moving reset ops into ata_port_operations but we need to do more than that, IMHO. -- tejun