linux-kernel - Kernel Summit request for Discussion of future of ATA (libata) and IDE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:57:35 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Kernel Summit request for Discussion of future of ATA (libata) and
	IDE

Right at the moment, we have two separate subsystems for running IDE
type devices:  driver/ide and drivers/ata.  The claim I've seen is that
drivers/ata can do everything drivers/ide can do plus it does sata.  I
also note that no major distribution seems to enable anything in
drivers/ide anymore, so given this is it time to deprecate drivers/ide?

A counter argument to the above is that not all drivers (particularly
the older ones where hw is scarce) are converted to drivers/ata, so
drivers/ide seems to be needed for some legacy systems (in which case it
can be deprecated but not removed).  I've also noted that some embedded
distributions seem to be using drivers/ide, but I'm not really sure
whether this is inertia or some overriding need.

The proposal is to discuss the future of these two subsystems and arrive
at a consensus what's happening to each going forwards.

James

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/