[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4739B0E5.2010303@rtr.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:12:53 -0500
From: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_nv: fix ADMA ATAPI issues with memory over 4GB
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
..
>> Yes, it should likely do something with these return values. Though
>> theoretically it shouldn't fail, since the DMA mask is either 32-bit,
>> which shouldn't fail, or one that was successfully set before. Also I
>> don't think the SCSI layer actually checks the slave_config return
>> value.. sigh.
>
> Then please at least add WARN_ON() && another reason why allocating /
> deallocating resources from ->slave_config isn't such a good idea.
..
The entire point of "slave_configure" is to provide a point for the LLD
to do per-device data structure allocation/init.
And yes, SCSI does check the return code. Whether the code around that check
is buggy or not is another question, but it's always worked for me.
> if (sdev->host->hostt->slave_configure) {
> int ret = sdev->host->hostt->slave_configure(sdev);
> if (ret) {
> /*
> * if LLDD reports slave not present, don't clutter
> * console with alloc failure messages
> */
> if (ret != -ENXIO) {
> sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
> "failed to configure device\n");
> }
> return SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE;
> }
> }
Cheers
-
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