From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates for 2.6.34 Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:12:58 +0100 Message-ID: <201003052112.58271.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20100301202330.GA14977@havoc.gtf.org> <201003051958.24987.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B915EEF.1040307@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com ([209.85.220.219]:34124 "EHLO mail-fx0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755708Ab0CEUOf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:14:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B915EEF.1040307@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Alan Cox 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