From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 27 21:32:48 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1C0ACC; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:32:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC99274; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r2RLWgZ5067899; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:32:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r2RLWgDb067898; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:32:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:32:42 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Alexander Motin Subject: Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack? Message-ID: <20130327213242.GA67876@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:32:48 -0000 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. > Does anybody have good ideas why we should not drop > it now? Because it works? -- Steve