From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] libata: use PIO for misc ATAPI commands Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:16:56 +0900 Message-ID: <474EE5F8.1030409@gmail.com> References: <1196346817387-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <11963468202627-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <20071129160555.38ee2edc@the-village.bc.nu> <474EE561.7010207@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]:39380 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758968AbXK2QRG (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:17:06 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1591870rvb for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:17:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <474EE561.7010207@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, liml@rtr.ca, albertl@mail.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com Tejun Heo wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: >>> Private command type / transfer length filtering in sata_promise, >>> pata_it821x and pata_pdc2027x are removed as core layer filtering is >>> more conservative. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo >> NAK - as before >> >> This is the wrong way to do stuff. Stop penalizing the 99.99% of users >> with perfectly sane hardware. In addition I note that the whitelist for >> drives would rapidly be thousands of entries long and unmanagable. > > Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I just don't think > that penalty is worth considering and definitely don't think whitelist > is necessary at all. Also, what do other people think about the subject? IIRC, Jeff agrees with Alan, right? Albert, Mark, what do you guys think? Thanks. -- tejun