From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set_capacity() Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:25:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4BEC4423.3030507@kernel.org> References: <1273766206-17402-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1273766778.4353.200.camel@mulgrave.site> <4BEC272E.10508@kernel.org> <20100513174047.GX25951@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100513174047.GX25951@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: James Bottomley , jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ben@decadent.org.uk List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, On 05/13/2010 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > Is there a valid case for setting the capacity less than the unlocked > capacity? I would think the unlock/lock bool api is saner. IDE currently is the only user (and probably has been that way the whole time), so it is a binary thing. I have no idea why the original interface was designed that way. Looks like it tried to be too generic. Anyways, for the task at hand, the following should be enough. void (*unlock_native_capacity)(void); This simple signalling is how the current interface is being used anyway. If nobody objects, I'll replace ->set_capacity() with the above. Thanks. -- tejun