Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:08PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: FWIW, libata generally follows a "implement it, if enough people care about it" policy for the old HDIO_xxx ioctls. I personally care about

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
Erik Andersen wrote: On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:31:30PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Erik Andersen wrote: + if (!atapi_enabled && dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { This seems like an impossible condition? Hmm, suppose so. Do you think that simply doing: if

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
Erik Andersen wrote: On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:31:30PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Erik Andersen wrote: + if (!atapi_enabled dev-class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { This seems like an impossible condition? Hmm, suppose so. Do you think that simply doing: if (dev-class ==

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:08PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: FWIW, libata generally follows a implement it, if enough people care about it policy for the old HDIO_xxx ioctls. I personally care about

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-15 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:08PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > FWIW, libata generally follows a "implement it, if enough people care > > about it" policy for the old HDIO_xxx ioctls. > > I personally care about HDIO_GET_IDENTITY and

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Erik Andersen
On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:31:30PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Erik Andersen wrote: > >+if (!atapi_enabled && dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { > > This seems like an impossible condition? Hmm, suppose so. Do you think that simply doing: if (dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI)

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Jeff Garzik
Erik Andersen wrote: + if (!atapi_enabled && dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { This seems like an impossible condition? Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info

[PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Erik Andersen
On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > FWIW, libata generally follows a "implement it, if enough people care > about it" policy for the old HDIO_xxx ioctls. I personally care about HDIO_GET_IDENTITY and find it terribly useful to quickly find out about a drive. Perhaps

[PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Erik Andersen
On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: FWIW, libata generally follows a implement it, if enough people care about it policy for the old HDIO_xxx ioctls. I personally care about HDIO_GET_IDENTITY and find it terribly useful to quickly find out about a drive. Perhaps enough

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Jeff Garzik
Erik Andersen wrote: + if (!atapi_enabled dev-class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { This seems like an impossible condition? Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: [PATCH] support HDIO_GET_IDENTITY in libata

2006-12-14 Thread Erik Andersen
On Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:31:30PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: Erik Andersen wrote: +if (!atapi_enabled dev-class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { This seems like an impossible condition? Hmm, suppose so. Do you think that simply doing: if (dev-class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) { here