From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc3-bk1: ide1: failed to initialize IDE interface
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 00:41:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58cb370e050204154155cafb20@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050204234422.4a9c6fd0.khali@linux-fr.org>
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:44:22 +0100, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just gave a quick try to 2.6.11-rc3-bk1, and noticed the following
> new message in dmesg:
> ide1: failed to initialize IDE interface
>
> This seems to be new in 2.6.11-rc3-bk1. I could find the relevant
> changeset in bk:
> http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.1992.9.16
>
> My (admittedly quick) analysis of the code (drivers/ide/ide-probe.c) is
> that init_hwif() can return 0 in two cases: either because the IDE
> interface is somehow not really there (!hwif->present) or because
> something wrong happened while initializing the IDE interface. My
> system's ide1 happens to be enabled (BIOS settings) but no IDE device is
> connected to it. I traced the code and it unsurprisingly happens that I
> am in the first "error" case - init_hwif() exits immediately because
> !hwif->present.
>
> I would tend to think that this is *not* an error, so we shouldn't
> display an error message in this case. Maybe init_hwif() should return 1
Yep this is the simplest fix - interface without a drives should
return success value. Care to make a patch?
> instead of 0 in this case. Or maybe it should return -1, 0 and 1 for
> error, no interface and success, respectively. I'm not certain I
> understand the semantics behind the returned value, does it mean
> error/success or interface absent/present (or a bit of each)? Or maybe
Return value currently means only error/success
and till the latest patch this value was ignored completely.
> we could move the error message into init_hwif() itself, but that would
> require some error path changes.
>
> I do not propose a patch because I'm not exactly sure what has to be
> done, but I still believe something has to be done. Insight anyone?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-04 23:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-04 22:44 2.6.11-rc3-bk1: ide1: failed to initialize IDE interface Jean Delvare
2005-02-04 23:41 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz [this message]
2005-02-05 20:55 ` Jean Delvare
2005-02-05 21:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2005-02-05 22:20 ` Jean Delvare
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=58cb370e050204154155cafb20@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prarit@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox