Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

[Victor Balada Diaz]

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? Does anybody have good ideas why we should not drop 
> it now?

Hello,

At my previous job we had troubles with NCQ on some controllers. It caused
failures and silent data corruption. As old ata code didn't use NCQ we just used
it.

I reported some of the problems on 8.2[1] but the problem existed with 8.3.

I no longer have access to those systems, so i don't know if the problem
still exists or have been fixed on newer versions.

Regards.
Victor.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/muc.lists.freebsd.stable/dAMf028CtXM
-- 
La prueba más fehaciente de que existe vida inteligente en otros
planetas, es que no han intentado contactar con nosotros.