Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

Alexander Motin mav at FreeBSD.org
Sun Mar 31 09:30:04 UTC 2013


On 31.03.2013 08:13, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:00:24 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
>   > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Matthias Andree <mandree at freebsd.org> wrote:
>   > > Am 27.03.2013 22:22, schrieb Alexander Motin:
>   > >> 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? Does anybody have good ideas why we should not drop
>   > >> it now?
>   > >
>   > > Alexander,
>   > >
>   > > The regression in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/157397
>   > > where the SATA NCQ slots stall for some Samsung drives in the new stack,
>   > > and consequently hang the computer for prolonged episodes where it is in
>   > > the NCQ error handling, disallows removal of the old driver. (Last
>   > > checked with 9.1-RELEASE at current patchlevel.)
>   >
>   > We're talking about 10.x, so if you want it fixed, you need update
>   > with 10.x information.
>   >
>   > Please put 10.x diagnostics in the PR.
>
> Given Alexander also posted this to -stable, just for clarity, are we
> _only_ talking about 10.x here, or might this change get MFC'd to 9?

Yes, I am only going to drop it from 10.x, but bug reports from 9-STABLE 
users are welcome, as at some point they will become 10.x users.

-- 
Alexander Motin


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list