From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262827AbTLALFV (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:05:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263408AbTLALFV (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:05:21 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:29839 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262827AbTLALFQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:05:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:43:36 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Samuel Flory , , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: libata in 2.4.24? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Samuel Flory wrote: > > > Are you considering including libata support for 2.4.24? From my > > testing with a number of different embedded sata chipsets (mostly ICH, > > SI, and Promise) it appears very stable. I'm not seeing any data > > corruption or lockups when running Cerberus with 2.4.23-rc5 + libata > > patch. The only troubles I've had were with initialization of embedded > > promise sata controllers. (I still need to test with Jeff's latest fixes > > for this.) > > I'm happy to include it in 2.4 when Jeff thinks its stable enough for a > stable series. ;) I thought a bit more about this issue and I have a different opinion now. 2.6 is getting more and more stable and already includes libata --- users who need it should use 2.6.