James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:37 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
False statement, for libata.
Could you amplify this statement, please ... I looked through the head
of libata-dev and it seems that these are still the only two bufflen
uses, which still do look obviously wrong ... I don't see where the
problem in libata with this is?
Christoph's false statement is: "Using the buffer and bufflen fields
means they do very broken things in error handling."
libata does not do "very broken things in error handling."
Please CC the author (me) or linux-ide, at least, when you touch
libata.
The tradition is that for infrastructure changes like this, particularly
ones that are trivial, as this appears to be, you simply copy the scsi
list and don't have to sweep up the individual maintainers of each
driver.
This is apparently an EH-related patch, and libata uses SCSI EH very
differently from all other drivers. In this case, Christoph's "very
broken" justification is clearly inaccurate, and thus a CC is obviously
warranted.
Also, I remind people constantly of this, so I'm sure you and Christoph
have heard the request before.
Jeff, the one who forwards to linux-scsi when others forget
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
