[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45B8E2D5.1030508@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:03:17 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/15] ide: disable DMA in ->ide_dma_check for "no IORDY"
case
Hello.
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>The other advantage of doing cleanups is that code becomes cleaner/simpler
>>>which matters a lot for this codebase, i.e. ide-dma-off-void.patch exposed
>>>(yet to be fixed) bug in set_using_dma() (->ide_dma_off_quietly always returns
>>>0 which is passed by ->ide_dma_check to set_using_dma() which incorrectly
>>>then calls ->ide_dma_on).
>> Well, this seems a newly intruduced bug.
> The old code is so convulted that it is hard to see it w/o cleanup. :)
> ->ide_dma_check implementations often do
> return hwif->ide_dma_off_quietly(drive);
> so the return value of ide_dma_off_quietly() (which is always 0) is passed to
> if (HWIF(drive)->ide_dma_check(drive)) return -EIO;
> in ide.c:set_using_dma() -> as a result the next line is executed
> if (HWIF(drive)->ide_dma_on(drive)) return -EIO;
So, the error seems to call hwif->ide_dma_on() after hwif->ide_dma_check()
since hwif->ide_dma_check() must've already called that.
MBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists