[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200706160045.36638.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:45:36 +0200
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Masatake YAMATO <jet@...e.org>
Cc: cebbert@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] never called printk statement in ide-taskfile.c::wait_drive_not_busy
Hi,
On Tuesday 05 June 2007, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
> > On 06/04/2007 10:21 PM, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c b/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> > > index 30175c7..5e05311 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> > > @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static u8 wait_drive_not_busy(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > > while (((stat = hwif->INB(IDE_STATUS_REG)) & BUSY_STAT) && retries--)
> > > udelay(10);
> > >
> > > - if (!retries)
> > > + if (retries < 0)
> >
> > if (stat & BUSY_STAT)
> >
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "%s: drive still BUSY!\n", drive->name);
> > >
>
> Oh, yes.
> Giving `retries' both roles: loop counter and condition flag for logging
> may not good.
>
>
> for (retries = 0; retries < 100; retries++)
> {
> if ((stat = hwif->INB(IDE_STATUS_REG)) & BUSY_STAT)
> break;
>
> udelay(10);
> }
>
>
> if (stat & BUSY_STAT)
> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: drive still BUSY!\n", drive->name);
Please re-submit this fix in the form of a patch so I can merge it.
Thanks,
Bart
-
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