From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:46:21 +0900 Message-ID: <448D702D.5010507@gmail.com> References: <448B7FFD.9050507@gmail.com> <448C1C1E.7080109@pobox.com> <448C1FA7.6030305@gmail.com> <448D6F09.3080609@pobox.com> 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 ([64.233.166.183]:57055 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751956AbWFLNq1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:46:27 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so1693947pye for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:46:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <448D6F09.3080609@pobox.com> 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: >> Several drivers only need flags. IMHO, having to allocate hpriv just >> for flags is a bit annoying. I also thought about separating >> capability flags and dynamic flags but couldn't think of proper field >> name. ap->dyn_flags? Also, it would be easy to screw up and test the >> wrong field. Another sucky option was using u64 for flags. > > I tend to think that most drivers fall into two categories: > > * bmdma (PCI IDE-like) drivers > * drivers which already do their own hpriv allocation and management > > Therefore, I would be OK with adding a bmdma_flags member, to be used > only by bmdma drivers [and eventually separated from the high level > libata API, as discussed]. Otherwise, I would go ahead and add code to > allocate an hpriv structure in the driver. Okay, bmdma_flags then. I'll reserve lower 16 bits for generic bmdma flags and allow LLDDs to use upper 16 bits. -- tejun