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
