zhao, forrest wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 15:25 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> @@ -2743,16 +2743,22 @@ void ata_scsi_simulate(struct ata_device
>>
>> void ata_scsi_scan_host(struct ata_port *ap)
>> {
>> - struct ata_device *dev;
>> unsigned int i;
>>
>> if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_DISABLED)
>> return;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < ATA_MAX_DEVICES; i++) {
>> - dev = &ap->device[i];
>> + struct ata_device *dev = &ap->device[i];
>> + struct scsi_device *sdev;
>> +
>> + if (!ata_dev_enabled(dev) || dev->sdev)
>> + continue;
>>
>> - if (ata_dev_enabled(dev))
>> - scsi_scan_target(&ap->host->shost_gendev, 0, i, 0, 0);
>> + sdev = __scsi_add_device(ap->host, 0, i, 0, NULL);
> Is it better to use macro scsi_add_device() than invoking
> __scsi_add_device() directly here? I know this is only a trivial change.
Again, could be. The change is mostly cosmetic. I like the current
form because it explicitly signifies that libata doesn't hold reference
to sdev.
--
tejun
-
: 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
