linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/68] ide2libata

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

Date:	Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jeff@...zik.org
Cc:	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, bzolnier@...il.com,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/68] ide2libata

From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:10:07 -0500

> But hey...  if you want to accept patches slowly turning IDE into
> libata, that's your call :) It just seems quite contrary to what has
> been sold to the remaining IDE users.

What I said back then was based upon the presumption that
the drivers has a small tester base, thus any change to
any particular driver isn't likely to get much testing.

If the drivers get truly shared between IDE and ATA, that
presumption is entirely removed, the ATA testers will
be hitting the same driver code that whatever remaining
IDE users will be.

So if the sharing can be done in a sane manner, I'm OK
with that kind of plan.

What Bart has posted with all of the ifdefs and stuff,
I've stated over and over I don't agree with and don't
think is sane.

Doing it by making the data structures actually be the
same, and not using any ifdefs, that would be sane to me.
--
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/