From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8-mm2: CONFIG_ATA_SFF: panic involving mount_block_root and down the road Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:45:45 +0900 Message-ID: <480157B9.90801@gmail.com> References: <20080410203354.f0a6f464.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080411234345.GA4742@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20080412005917.GA4742@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20080412065248.GA8849@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <480088AD.1040904@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.250]:42110 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753492AbYDMAqG (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:46:06 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k29so292164rvb.1 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:46:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <480088AD.1040904@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Adrian Bunk , Alexey Dobriyan , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Now raise hands those who knew that your ATA controller is SFF >>> compliant. /me raises a hand. >> Is there any technical reason why we have to bother users with the >> ATA_SFF option at all? >> >> It sounds like a perfect canndidate for being select'ed. > > 'default y' is appropriate, but option that is used to disable a major > swath of legacy code unneeded on modern FIS-based SATA platforms like AHCI. Heh.. yeah, but I have to admit SFF support is cryptic. We can definitely use some friendly explanation there. -- tejun