On Saturday 27 May 2006 20:47, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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);
This is fine with me, Jeff originally complained it was a layering violation.
Unless he really objects, I'd say go for that for 2.6.17 - well actually
moving it inside the ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED case is clearly better.
I'll test it on my notebook right away.
Jens
-
: 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
