| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:47:26 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk Cc: jeff@...zik.org, bzolnier@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/68] ide2libata From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:25:40 +0000 > The old IDE "maintenance mode" seems to be drifting - the rate of change > is rather high for that claim. I think there's another angle to this. By making the IDE layer build from the same code as the ATA driver, the legacy IDE layer gets an indirect tester base. I like that. However what I don't like is how this is implemented. We shouldn't pretend the data structures are the same by using macros in some header file, we should truly abstract out the data types properly such that these drivers in fact use the same datastructures. For the price of a few series of data structure morphs, we eliminate the tester-base issue of legacy IDE. There's one driver for both ATA and legacy IDE, the stuff in front is just a presentation and probing layer, nothing more. The cost and risk is testing the morphing changes, but I think the scales tip towards making this truly worth it. Bart, thanks for working on this and publishing what you came up with. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists