Re: [git patches] libata updates for 2.6.34

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

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?

Some people are never satisfied...

	Jeff