Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:05:14 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack? Message-ID: <20130327220514.GA68064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <51536627.7090005@FreeBSD.org> References: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> <20130327213242.GA67876@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <51536627.7090005@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130327220514.GA68064>