libata-dev: recognize WRITE_MULTI_FUA_EXT for r/w multiple

Jeff,

Changes:
Recognize ATA_CMD_WRITE_MULTI_FUA_EXT as r/w multiple commands.

Patch against the irq-pio branch
(1ed82ae3df3882bfcb5bfe5e9f97e4e8e23af299).

For your review, thanks.

Albert

---

@@ -314,7 +314,8 @@ static inline int is_multi_taskfile(stru
 	return (tf->command == ATA_CMD_READ_MULTI) ||
 	       (tf->command == ATA_CMD_WRITE_MULTI) ||
 	       (tf->command == ATA_CMD_READ_MULTI_EXT) ||
-	       (tf->command == ATA_CMD_WRITE_MULTI_EXT);
+	       (tf->command == ATA_CMD_WRITE_MULTI_EXT) ||
+	       (tf->command == ATA_CMD_WRITE_MULTI_FUA_EXT);
 }
 
 static inline int ata_ok(u8 status)

This one will require exhaustive testing on various controllers. There are quite a few PIO boards with FIFOs that "recognize" opcodes for READs and WRITEs. And practically all of them predate any concept of FUA commands.

Very VERY risky.

Which is why it's so annoying and seemingly idiotic that t13 keeps making up new opcodes for the exact same thing instead of allowing options bits.

Jens Axboe

I would request that you adjust your patch submission slightly. Stuff like "Jeff," "Changes:", "Patch against...", "For your review", "Albert" all must be hand-edited out before applying the patch. Everything before the "---" terminator is copied directly into the kernel changelog.

Take a look at Tejun's recent patches for an example. The message body of his emailed submissions look like:

	[change description]
	[signed-off-by]
	---
	[notes, comments, insults, etc.  :)]