On Sunday 02 March 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 07:41:28PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Saturday 01 March 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > Also, remove unused stage-parameter from idetape_copy_stage_from_user() > > > > Changes like this one are the best to put into separate patches > > at the very beginning of the patch series. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/ide/ide-tape.c | 15 ++++----------- > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c > > > index e919d41..4a064c1 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c > > > @@ -1700,7 +1700,7 @@ static idetape_stage_t *idetape_kmalloc_stage(idetape_tape_t *tape) > > > } > > > > > > static int idetape_copy_stage_from_user(idetape_tape_t *tape, > > > - idetape_stage_t *stage, const char __user *buf, int n) > > > + const char __user *buf, int n) > > > { > > > struct idetape_bh *bh = tape->bh; > > > int count; > > > @@ -2696,8 +2696,6 @@ static ssize_t idetape_chrdev_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, > > > > > > /* Initialize write operation */ > > > if (tape->chrdev_dir != IDETAPE_DIR_WRITE) { > > > - if (tape->chrdev_dir == IDETAPE_DIR_READ) > > > - idetape_discard_read_pipeline(drive, 1); > > > > Why this is OK thing to do? > > > > Are you sure that there are no hidden side-effects? > > > > > if (tape->merge_stage || tape->merge_stage_size) { > > > printk(KERN_ERR "ide-tape: merge_stage_size " > > > "should be 0 now\n"); > > > @@ -2729,8 +2727,6 @@ static ssize_t idetape_chrdev_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, > > > } > > > if (count == 0) > > > return (0); > > > - if (tape->restart_speed_control_req) > > > - idetape_restart_speed_control(drive); > > > > ditto > > > > tape->restart_speed_control_req can still be non-zero. > > Same as above: my main focus was ease of review and not keeping pipelining > functional at all times. The review is _not_ easied by introducing new & not completely defined states of the operation... [ i.e. the speed control feedback loop should be either left alone or removed altogether in some pre/post-patch instead of subtle changes in the intermediate patches. ] Could please recast the patches? Thanks, Bart -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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