Hi,
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:08:39AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 02 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > - have (almost) equal handling of commands based solely on sense_key
>
> I'm having a VERY hard time trying to review this patch because at
> the same time that codepaths were merged if()s were replaced by switch()
> which in turn resulted in change of intendation... on top of that
> the patch description is very vague about this part of the changes...
I completely and exactly understand what you are saying :), I thought so
too when I looked at the diffs yesterday. Well, if it's any consolation, the
patches've been tested so they seem to work :). Anyway, split version coming
up...
> We're dealing with tricky error recovery code here and it is very easy
> for subtle bugs to slip in => it is very important to have the changes
> easily reviewable by as many people as possible.
..
> > @@ -614,14 +589,15 @@ static ide_startstop_t cdrom_newpc_intr(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > struct request *rq = hwif->rq;
> > ide_expiry_t *expiry = NULL;
> > int dma_error = 0, dma, thislen, uptodate = 0;
> > - int write = (rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0, rc, nsectors;
> > + int write, uninitialized_var(rc), nsectors;
>
> Why is uninitialized_var() here now?
because gcc is whining that it might be uninitialized although I've
doublechecked all codepaths returning a valid error. It is there to shut
up this warning, actually.
> > int sense = blk_sense_request(rq);
> > unsigned int timeout;
> > u16 len;
> > u8 ireason, stat;
> >
> > - ide_debug_log(IDE_DBG_PC, "cmd[0]: 0x%x, write: 0x%x",
> > - rq->cmd[0], write);
> > + write = (rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0;
> >
> > + ide_debug_log(IDE_DBG_PC, "cmd: 0x%x, write: 0x%x", rq->cmd[0], write);
> >
> > /* check for errors */
> > dma = drive->dma;
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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
