linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <44CE5473.8080903@pobox.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:05:23 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"J.A. Magall?n" <jamagallon@....com>,
	"Linux-Kernel," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel

Tejun Heo wrote:
> I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for 
> partially stolen legacy devices.  We can make ->hard_port_no do the job 
> as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited 
> cases (first legacy port stolen).
> 
> Jeff, what do you think?


The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can 
sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port 
number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports.

If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it.

	Jeff


-
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/