James Bottomley wrote:
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.
ACK, with the added explanation of why this is needed.
Thanks,
Jeff
-
: 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
