Re: [PATCH 06/11] ide: make ide_do_drive_cmd return rq->errors

[FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:32:22 +0200
Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:26:37AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > ide_do_drive_cmd forges an error value (-EIO) instead of
> > rq->errors. idetape_queue_rw_tail wants rq->errors so this patch makes
> > ide_do_drive_cmd return rq->errors.
> > 
> > For compatibility, this patch makes the users of ide_do_drive_cmd
> > return -EIO instead of a return value of ide_do_drive_cmd
> > (rq->errors).
> 
> i don't see the reason for it. In the end, the only error type that is being
> handed to and fro is -EIO and nobody is interested in rq->errors. So, whether
> ide_do_drive_cmd or its callers return -EIO is kinda unimportant. In the second
> case, however, you have simply added more code (as per the diffstat below) with
> no apparent functionality. It would only make sense, IMHO, if you would
> differentiate behaviour based on rq->errors...

I did this only because idetape_queue_rw_tail seems to have
differentiate behaviour based on rq->errors:


static int idetape_queue_rw_tail(ide_drive_t *drive, int cmd, int blocks,
				 struct idetape_bh *bh)
{
...

	(void) ide_do_drive_cmd(drive, &rq, ide_wait);

	if ((cmd & (REQ_IDETAPE_READ | REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE)) == 0)
		return 0;

	if (tape->merge_stage)
		idetape_init_merge_stage(tape);
	if (rq.errors == IDETAPE_ERROR_GENERAL)
		return -EIO;


If we can do something like:

	ret = ide_do_drive_cmd(drive, &rq, ide_wait);

	if ((cmd & (REQ_IDETAPE_READ | REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE)) == 0)
		return 0;

	if (tape->merge_stage)
		idetape_init_merge_stage(tape);
	if (ret)
		return -EIO;


Then yeah, we don't need this patch.