On Wednesday 24 June 2009 08:49:48 David Miller wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:49:32 +0200 > > > On Wednesday 24 June 2009 01:19:04 David Miller wrote: > >> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:27:27 +0200 > >> > >> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Subject: [PATCH] ide: always kill the whole request on error > >> > > >> > * Use blk_rq_bytes() instead of obsolete ide_rq_bytes() in ide_kill_rq() > >> > and ide_floppy_do_request() for failed requests. > >> > [ bugfix part ] > >> > > >> > * Use blk_rq_bytes() instead of obsolete ide_rq_bytes() in ide_do_devset() > >> > and ide_complete_drive_reset(). Then remove ide_rq_bytes(). > >> > [ cleanup part ] > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > 'cleanup part' tested, limited testing with 'bugfix part' > >> > (using simulated failures of disk fs requests) > >> > >> Considering this alongsize patch #2, it even more begs the > >> question as to why special requests on floppy and tape were > >> handled differently. And that 'error <= 0' test, strange. > > > > TBH I fail to see how it relates to changes present in _this_ patch > > as no change in _this_ patch affects special tape/floppy requests.. > > The previous patch is a prerequesite for this one. So we should > discuss them as a whole. Because if we can't remove the "ide/floppy > RQ error 0 instead of -EIO" bit, then we don't make these further > consolidations either. Untrue, we can easily redo the patch #3 to not be dependent on patch #2. Do you prefer such version instead? -- 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
