From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: backport ATA_FLAG_NO_SRST and ATA_FLAG_ASSUME_ATA Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:22:46 -0400 Message-ID: <47204446.7070609@garzik.org> References: <20071025065157.GH11853@htj.dyndns.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]:42369 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754992AbXJYHWt (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:22:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071025065157.GH11853@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: stable@kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Backport ATA_FLAG_NO_SRST and ATA_FLAG_ASSUME_ATA. These are > originally link flags (ATA_LFLAG_*) but link abstraction doesn't exist > on 2.6.23, so make it port flags. > > This is for the following workaround for ASUS P5W DH Deluxe. > > These new flags don't introduce any behavior change unless set and > nobody sets them yet. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > --- > This and the next patch are a bit large for -stable but they don't > change anything for machines other than P5W DH and P5W DH users have > been suffering long enough, so I think it'll be nice to include these > patches in the next -stable release. However, feel free to NACK if > you can see some danger in these patches. > > Jeff, what do you think? > > drivers/ata/libata-eh.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > include/linux/libata.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) ACK from me, though I wonder if we shouldn't wait and get feedback once this hits upstream (my next push to Andrew and Linus), before applying to stable. No special reason, just being conservative... Jeff