On 2/19/22 18:52, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 2/19/22 5:39 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > >>> Due to my sloppy coding in commit 2c75a451ecb0 ("ata: libata-sff: refactor >>> ata_sff_altstatus()"), in ata_sff_lost_interrupt() iff the device control >>> register doesn't exists, ata_port_warn() would print the 'status' variable >>> which never gets assigned. Restore the original order of the statements, >>> wrapping the ata_sff_altstatus() call in WARN_ON_ONCE()... >>> >>> While at it, fix crazy indentation in the ata_port_warn() call itself... >>> >>> Fixes: 2c75a451ecb0 ("ata: libata-sff: refactor ata_sff_altstatus()") >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx> >> >> I squashed this in the commit being fixed. > > I'm seeing a few typos/errors in the updated patch #2: > >> In ata_sff_lost_interrupt(), wrap the ata_sff_altstatus() call in a > > s/a/the/? > >> WARN_ON_ONCE() > > + check? > >> to issue a warning if the if the device control registert > > Register? :-) > >> does not exist. And while at it, fix crazy indentation in the >> ata_port_warn() call itself... > > Not clear why you (we?) emphasize this by using "itself"... > > Well, if you choose to fix those, I'll be thnakful. But you may as well > ignore me. :-) Will fix that. Thanks for checking. > > [...] > > MBR, Sergey -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research