From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix simplex adapters with libata Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:49:33 -0500 Message-ID: <45F0227D.5010905@rtr.ca> References: <20070308091211.GA7257@vana.vc.cvut.cz> <20070308130250.5647ce5c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rtr.ca ([64.26.128.89]:3330 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752004AbXCHOtg (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:49:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070308130250.5647ce5c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Petr Vandrovec , jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > >> diff -uprdN linux/drivers/ata/libata-core.c linux/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> --- linux/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-03-07 22:13:24.000000000 -0800 >> +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-03-08 00:15:37.000000000 -0800 >> @@ -3455,7 +3455,8 @@ static void ata_dev_xfermask(struct ata_ >> "device is on DMA blacklist, disabling DMA\n"); >> } >> >> - if ((host->flags & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX) && host->simplex_claimed != ap) { >> + if ((host->flags & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX) && >> + host->simplex_claimed && host->simplex_claimed != ap) { A different version of this fix just went upstream for 2.6.21 via Jeff. Which of the two is correct? I believe the other one looks like this: >> - if ((host->flags & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX) && host->simplex_claimed != ap) { >> - if ((host->flags & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX) && host->simplex_claimed == ap) { Cheers