On Sat, 27 May 2006, Mark Lord wrote:
>
> The original "bad layering" patch still works perfectly in it's place.
> Repeated below for Linus's benefit.
Why isn't the right fix the minimal one?
What's the layering violation in just having ATA resume make sure it's not
ATA_BUSY?
Why are you guys fighting over this?
And why the hell is Mark's patch not being accepted if it fixes something,
and the alternate patches do not?
Linus
---
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c b/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
index fa476e7..0ef4cf4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
@@ -4296,6 +4296,7 @@ static int ata_start_drive(struct ata_po
*/
int ata_device_resume(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_device *dev)
{
+ ata_busy_wait(ap, ATA_BUSY, 200000);
if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED) {
ap->flags &= ~ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED;
ata_set_mode(ap);
-
: 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
