On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > That would be a change in behaviour. Current code doesn't check for > CONDITION_MET, so this change shouldn't do it, neither. Idea was that > this patchset shouldn't change the current behaviour. > > While your argument might be valid, it definitely is a different story > and would need to be address with a different patchset. > As long as you're avoiding behavioural changes, you may need to drop the status_byte() change in patch 15/42 from this particular patch set -- unless it can be shown (inferred somehow) that drives never set that bit.
