Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:14:54 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes |
| |
On 10/13/2011 04:03 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com> > Subject: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes > > Fix display of pio_mode, dma_mode and xfer_mode device attributes. > > before: > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode > XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_UDMA_3, XFER_UDMA_2, XF > ER_UDMA_1, XFER_UDMA_0, XFER_MW_DMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_3, XFER_MW_DMA_2, XFER_SW_DMA > _2, XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2 > > after: > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode > XFER_UDMA_6 > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata | 4 ++-- > drivers/ata/libata-transport.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Index: b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata > =================================================================== > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata > @@ -59,12 +59,12 @@ class > > dma_mode > > - Transfer modes supported by the device when in DMA mode. > + Transfer mode currently used by the device when in DMA mode. > Mostly used by PATA device. > > pio_mode > > - Transfer modes supported by the device when in PIO mode. > + Transfer mode currently used by the device when in PIO mode. > Mostly used by PATA device. > > xfer_mode > Index: b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c > =================================================================== > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static struct { > { XFER_PIO_0, "XFER_PIO_0" }, > { XFER_PIO_SLOW, "XFER_PIO_SLOW" } > }; > -ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names) > +ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
"fix" or not it is an ABI change... who is impacted? Has anyone used the current, pre-patch behavior as documented?
Jeff
| |