Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:37:17AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I have the following concern with this patch (#3) however:
-static void ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_device *dev)
+static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_device *dev)
{
- if (!ata_dev_present(dev) || (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_PORT_DISABLED))
- return;
I think you drop too many ATA_FLAG_PORT_DISABLED tests in this patch,
leading the code to potentially miss a previously-flagged PORT_DISABLED
(perhaps by an LLDD).
Hmmm... the plan is to disallow LLDD's take ports or devices offline
from low level callbacks. They should just let upper layer know by
returning failure code.
Long term that plan is fine, but you still have to deal with the
existing API one way or another. ata_port_disable() is called directly
by a bunch of Alan's PATA drivers, and by ata_piix and sata_mv.
Thus you would either need to keep the PORT_DISABLED checks or convert
the drivers in question to a better API.
So just check those ata_port_disable() cases...
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
