On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:32:22 +0200
Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:26:37AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > ide_do_drive_cmd forges an error value (-EIO) instead of
> > rq->errors. idetape_queue_rw_tail wants rq->errors so this patch makes
> > ide_do_drive_cmd return rq->errors.
> >
> > For compatibility, this patch makes the users of ide_do_drive_cmd
> > return -EIO instead of a return value of ide_do_drive_cmd
> > (rq->errors).
>
> i don't see the reason for it. In the end, the only error type that is being
> handed to and fro is -EIO and nobody is interested in rq->errors. So, whether
> ide_do_drive_cmd or its callers return -EIO is kinda unimportant. In the second
> case, however, you have simply added more code (as per the diffstat below) with
> no apparent functionality. It would only make sense, IMHO, if you would
> differentiate behaviour based on rq->errors...
I did this only because idetape_queue_rw_tail seems to have
differentiate behaviour based on rq->errors:
static int idetape_queue_rw_tail(ide_drive_t *drive, int cmd, int blocks,
struct idetape_bh *bh)
{
...
(void) ide_do_drive_cmd(drive, &rq, ide_wait);
if ((cmd & (REQ_IDETAPE_READ | REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE)) == 0)
return 0;
if (tape->merge_stage)
idetape_init_merge_stage(tape);
if (rq.errors == IDETAPE_ERROR_GENERAL)
return -EIO;
If we can do something like:
ret = ide_do_drive_cmd(drive, &rq, ide_wait);
if ((cmd & (REQ_IDETAPE_READ | REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE)) == 0)
return 0;
if (tape->merge_stage)
idetape_init_merge_stage(tape);
if (ret)
return -EIO;
Then yeah, we don't need this patch.
--
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
