From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa() Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:11:33 +0300 Message-ID: <497DFCD5.8040708@ru.mvista.com> References: <200901231615.38011.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <497B9EE4.8010807@ru.mvista.com> <20090125105045.65021406@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497DA356.2090206@ru.mvista.com> <20090126120107.20345a75@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:2787 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753949AbZAZSLD (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:11:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090126120107.20345a75@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: bzolnier@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, gdu@mns.spb.ru Alan Cox wrote: >>why we have to check for ATA revision prior to that -- unless we're >>trying to guard against pre ATA-3 values other than 0 or 0xFFFF. > Which we are. On what grounds? Note that ATA-3 only names 0 and 0xFFFF as inappropriate values. > At the point we first use this function we are poking > blindly at a device we have not done any other analysis of. Do you mean ata_dev_readid()? I'm seeing no issue with checking for ATA version there directly if you insist it should be done. > Alan MBR, Sergei