Re: [PATCH 1/3] libata: pass host flags into __ata_pci_sff_init_one()helper

[Jeff Garzik]

On 02/18/2010 04:44 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:59:22 +0100
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH] libata: pass host flags into __ata_pci_sff_init_one() helper
> >
> > This was orginally proposed by Alan Cox but as a change
> > for ata_pci_sff_init_one() helper function instead of
> > __ata_pci_sff_init_one() one which casues needless churn
> > to all host drivers and accidentally breakes few host
> > drivers which are still on their way upstream.
> >
> > Allows parallel scan and the like to be set without
> > having to stop using the existing full helper functions.
>
> NAK - __ is for internal symbol names.
>
> I was split 50/50 on adding ata_pci_sff_init_one_flags() or similar but
> the churn, given its a one off and we can then add all sorts of other
> future flags without pain, seemed worth it.
>
> I'm ambivalent about whether its best to go with a new function name as
> you have or take the hit now (which seems sensible to me). Either way the
> __ naming is wrong for an external interface.

Your proposed patch from yesterday adding flags to each is fine. 
All-driver patches are just fine, as long as the need is demonstrated 
[and it is, in this case].


> Anyway I'd *hope* we can get>  50% of interfaces parallel scanning at
> which point it ceases to be more noise anyway !
>
> Jeff ?

Most hardware should support parallel scanning, sans caveats like 
chipsets that snoop SET FEATURES - XFER MODE (that command, and only 
that command, needs synchronization)

	Jeff



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