linux-kernel - Re: remove the cmd_type field from struct request

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]

Message-ID: <ebcc36be-9c02-eff3-33a0-20f7dedc3c0b@cogentembedded.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:58:15 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: remove the cmd_type field from struct request

On 01/31/2017 09:51 PM, James Bottomley wrote:

>>> [1] which were a pain in the ass to untangle and debug during
>>> development, it's really time for it to die..
>>
>> Outside of the patch series in question, how to we expedite the
>> euthanasia of IDE? What explicit features/support are we missing
>> through libata that would need to be added, before we can git rm
>> drivers/ide/?
>
> I thought the primary objection was actually embedded in that libata

    Back at MontaVista, even embedded uses switched to libata years ago...
DaveM thinks we still can't prove that libata works everywhere the IDE works.
Besided, there are still a number of non-x86 drivers not converted over to 
libata (like DaVinci, etc.)...

> with its reliance on SCSI was just too large a dependency, so they have
> to keep using drivers/ide.

    Do you remember how many years ago a libata's own block driver was 
promised to you? ;-)
    I'd gladly wrote one, getting tired of my current OSS work... :-)

> Perhaps nvme and flash is obviating this
> problem and we can ask them again, though?

    What's wrong with those? I'm not really following NVMe...

> James

MBR, Sergei