From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: HPA patches Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4608A4F4.1010208@garzik.org> References: <20070323191321.5d00887a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20070323205652.GA9965@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:60824 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964798AbXC0FAm (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:00:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070323205652.GA9965@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, kyle@canonical.com Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:13:21PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: >> +static int ata_ignore_hpa = 0; >> +module_param_named(ignore_hpa, ata_ignore_hpa, int, 0644); >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_hpa, "Ignore HPA (0=off 1=on)"); > > I'm not sure I like the language here. "Ignore HPA" appears to mean > "Explicitly disable the HPA", which I guess is one interpretation of > "ignore" - however, naively I'd expect "Ignore HPA" to mean "Don't touch > the HPA" with the result that it would remain inaccessible to userspace. "ignore" sounds more appropriate to me. We're not just making it inaccessible, we are actively ignoring all traces of its existence everywhere, when that setting is enabled. Jeff