Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:22:11 +0200 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack? Message-ID: <51537113.6080406@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130327220514.GA68064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> <20130327213242.GA67876@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <51536627.7090005@FreeBSD.org> <20130327220514.GA68064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.03.2013 00:05, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:35:35PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 27.03.2013 23:32, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA >>>> stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having >>>> `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to >>>> drop non-ATA_CAM ata(4) code, unused since that time from the head >>>> branch to allow further ATA code cleanup. >>>> >>>> Does any one here still uses legacy ATA stack (kernel explicitly built >>>> without `options ATA_CAM`) for some reason, for example as workaround >>>> for some regression? >>> >>> Yes, I use the legacy ATA stack. >> >> On 9.x or HEAD where new one is default? > > Head. > >>>> Does anybody have good ideas why we should not drop >>>> it now? >>> >>> Because it works? >> >> Any problems with new one? >> > > Last time I tested the new one, and this was several months > ago, the system (a Dell Latitude D530 laptop) would not boot. Probably we should just fix that. Any more info? -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51537113.6080406>