On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:17 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > If the submittor is under the impression that libata's error handling > is > "very broken", I would appreciate a clarification. Otherwise, one > must > assume that the submittor should have CC'd linux-ide and relevant > maintainers, because they do not understand the code they are > patching. > > What _precisely_ is broken, given that libata does all its own error > handling, and ignores scsi_unjam_host() ? The problem being fixed is that the two fields in question are exclusively for the use of the error handler. No driver should ever touch them ... there are equivalent fields for the drivers to use which contain the correct values, which is what this patch is switching to. I don't believe any criticism of the libata error handler was implied or intended ... the problem is the driver piece of libata uses fields it shouldn't, which the patch fixes. James - : 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
