Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:03:49 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ide: ide_port_wait_ready() fix | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:59:55 +0200
> David Miller wrote: > >> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:13:18 +0200 >> >> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> >> > Subject: [PATCH] ide: ide_port_wait_ready() fix >> > >> > Fix for commit a20b2a4 ("ide: skip probe if there are no devices on >> > the port (v2)"). We must check for slave device before failing. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> >> >> This will mishandle the case where there is no slave in the device >> list. > > I don't see it: > > @ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static int ide_port_wait_ready(ide_hwif_ > { > const struct ide_tp_ops *tp_ops = hwif->tp_ops; > ide_drive_t *drive; > - int i, rc; > + int i, rc, prev_rc = 0; > > printk(KERN_DEBUG "Probing IDE interface %s...\n", hwif->name); > > @@ -623,8 +623,10 @@ static int ide_port_wait_ready(ide_hwif_ > tp_ops->write_devctl(hwif, ATA_DEVCTL_OBS); > mdelay(2); > rc = ide_wait_not_busy(hwif, 35000); > - if (rc) > + if (prev_rc && rc) > goto out; > + prev_rc = rc; > + rc = 0; > } else > printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: ide_wait_not_busy() skipped\n", > drive->name); > > If there is no slave device but there is a master device the code falls-through > and returns a success.
That's not what we want, if there is only a master device and no slave device in the list this loop is iterating over we want to return the error code in "rc", not zero.
| |