It seems Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:49:18 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > 
> > This is definitly something that is needed..
> > The question is whether the CAM and ATAPI authors feel it is 
> > right. We are guided by them (even though we desperatly need this).
> > 
> > Personally even if not perfect.. it's better than nothing and we should
> > probably commit something like it. or based on it..
> > (having looked at it I think it seems fine.)
> I think it's a good idea as well.

Hmm, why do we need to add new layers and loss of functionality
to the ATAPI devices ?

> > So here's my vote for a quick commit.
> No.  See below.  There are still problems with it.

I'll quit the ATA/ATAPI development/maintenance if this goes in quickly.
There are alot of issues here that needs solutions. It will need a 
*serious* maintainer that handles all aspects of it, especially
dealing with error reports for one thing, technically it needs
to be brought to a state where it works on alot more HW that seems
to be the case for now, and the integration into the ATA driver
should be dealt with a bit differently.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to