Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:36:02 +0200 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.8 IDE 36 |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: >>Doing it with a loopback like interface at a higher level is the much >>saner operation - I understand why Martin removed the byteswap support, >>and agree with it 100%. It just didn't make any sense from a driver >>standpoint. > > > We need to support partitioning on loopback devices in that case. > > >>The only reason byteswapping exists is a rather historical one: Linux did >>the wrong thing for "insw/outsw" on big-endian architectures at one point >>(it byteswapped the data). > > > A small number of other setups people wired the IDE the quick and easy > way and their native format is indeed ass backwards - some M68K disks and > the Tivo are examples of that. Interworking requires byteswapping and the > ability to handle byteswapped partition tables.
I said it already multiple times Alan - please note that the byte-swapping code for *physically* crosswired systems is *still there*. OK?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |