From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elias Oltmanns Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: Fix HDIO_DRIVE_RESET handling Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:12:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87wskfs3wb.fsf@denkblock.local> References: <87k5gmz596.fsf@denkblock.local> <87wskhuk98.fsf@denkblock.local> <87r6apuk16.fsf@denkblock.local> <200806240041.46109.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from nebensachen.de ([195.34.83.29]:53322 "EHLO mail.nebensachen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751132AbYFXHO3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:14:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200806240041.46109.bzolnier@gmail.com> (Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz's message of "Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:41:45 +0200") Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Monday 23 June 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote: > [...] > >> +static inline void ide_complete_drive_reset(ide_drive_t *drive) >> +{ >> + struct request *rq = HWGROUP(drive)->rq; >> + >> + if (rq && blk_special_request(rq) && rq->cmd[0] == REQ_DRIVE_RESET) > > Shouldn't we be also checking for !rq->rq_disk here? Well, it would probably feel more consistent. However, as far as I can tell, opcodes 0x20 and above aren't used by any of the ULDs right now and it would probably make sense to reserve that range (or part of it) for the generic ide_special_rq() handler. Consequently, it is sufficient to check for REQ_TYPE and op code, as I did. Regards, Elias