Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [git patches] libata updates for 2.6.34 | Date | Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:12:58 +0100 |
| |
On Friday 05 March 2010 08:43:43 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 03/05/2010 01:58 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Monday 01 March 2010 09:23:30 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >> libata: Pass host flags into the pci helper > > > > It introduces a subtle bug: > > > > struct ata_host { > > ... > > unsigned long flags; > > > >> @@ -1642,8 +1643,8 @@ extern int ata_pci_sff_activate_host(struct ata_host *host, > >> irq_handler_t irq_handler, > >> struct scsi_host_template *sht); > >> extern int ata_pci_sff_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, > >> - const struct ata_port_info * const * ppi, > >> - struct scsi_host_template *sht, void *host_priv); > >> + const struct ata_port_info * const * ppi, > >> + struct scsi_host_template *sht, void *host_priv, int hflags); > > > > 'int' type is not equal 'unsigned long' one on 64-bit architectures. > > True but largely irrelevant as we will never use more than 32 bits worth > of host flags. > > > > Besides doing it this way is clearly suboptimal as the same effect > > could have been achieved by doing: > > > > extern int __ata_pci_sff_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > const struct ata_port_info * const *ppi, > > struct scsi_host_template *sht, void *host_priv, > > int hflag); > > static inline int ata_pci_sff_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > const struct ata_port_info * const *ppi, > > struct scsi_host_template *sht, void *host_priv) > > { > > return __ata_pci_sff_init_one(pdev, ppi, sht, host_priv, 0); > > } > > This is far uglier than simply changing the API. > > > without the need to update all drivers and without breaking pending > > out-of-tree driver patches (yeah, it breaks my pata_ep93xx patches).. > > Every post you include a disclaimer about "my patches are not intended > for upstream" yet you still complain?
You've interpreted the disclaimer wrong -- "if you want my patches upstream do it yourself or pay for it cause I have neither time nor interest in an added bureaucracy and clean-yet-buggy mentality"..
Lets put things in the right perspective, look at your pull request:
48 files changed, 663 insertions(+), 417 deletions(-)
then at Dave's IDE pull request:
52 files changed, 617 insertions(+), 678 deletions(-)
and finally at my atang tree (I'm just testing 2.6.33 rebase):
328 files changed, 11528 insertions(+), 14491 deletions(-)
This is a whole different scale of changes and you shouldn't be surprised that it requires a bit different set of strategies to handle it effectively..
> Some people are never satisfied...
When did it become a bad thing? :)
-- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
| |