Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

Alexander Motin mav at
Wed Mar 27 22:22:21 UTC 2013

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

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list