From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Another Maxtor drive with broken NCQ Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:51:14 -0400 Message-ID: <468FA862.6030701@garzik.org> References: <468E8DE1.9010405@redhat.com> <468E9360.4070504@garzik.org> <468E9469.4090007@redhat.com> 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]:35220 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752472AbXGGOvT (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <468E9469.4090007@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Ebbert Cc: IDE/ATA development list Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On 07/06/2007 03:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> {"Maxtor 6B200M0", "BANC1BM0", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ } >>> >>> Or should *all* Maxtor 6B200M0 be blacklisted, since there's already >>> one of them in the list? >> Wanna send that as a patch, with attribution and sign-offs? :) >> > > For all revisions, or just that one new one? I don't think all 6B200M0 should be blacklisted, but BANC* is probably bad. I don't think the code can do wildcard matching, so just the one revision is probably the best we can do at the moment. Jeff