Tejun Heo wrote: > I don't really care one way or the other but the error condition > itself looked somewhat pointless to me, so I just killed it. Is the > error messasge really worth guaranteeing drive->pc can be accessed > after completion? That's a nasty and fragile guarantee. If such > check is really necessary, the proper way to do it would be recording > whether the last command was request sense in some persistent data > structure not trying to access a data structure which the code doesn't > own anymore. Yet another problem is that idetape_flush_tape_buffers() uses pc which is on stack which drive->pc ends up pointing directly to, so it won't work. Nobody expects that the pointer it passed into an API should be accessible by the API implementation after it was done with it. That's just a silly thing to do. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
