Re: LibPATA code issues / 2.6.15.4

[Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>]

Which kernel did you run your patch against?

With 2.6.16-rc4....

First patch looks good..

p34:/usr/src/linux# patch -p1 < /tmp/patch1
patching file drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c

p34:/usr/src/linux# patch -p1 < /tmp/12_libata_ata_opcode.patch
patching file drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 245 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 267 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 288 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 310 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 500 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 626 (offset -8 lines).
patching file drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 430 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 509 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #3 FAILED at 521.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 563 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 638 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 1329 (offset -8 lines).
1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file 
drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c.rej
patching file include/linux/ata.h
patching file include/linux/libata.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 373 (offset -47 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 463 (offset -49 lines).
p34:/usr/src/linux# ls -ld /usr/src/linux
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root src 16 2006-02-25 14:24 /usr/src/linux -> 
linux-2.6.16-rc4/
p34:/usr/src/linux#

Here is the *.rej file:

# cat libata-scsi.c.rej
***************
*** 521,528 ****
         *ascq = 0x04; /*  "auto-reallocation failed" */

    translate_done:
-       DPRINTK(KERN_ERR "ata%u: translated op=0x%02x ATA stat/err 
0x%02x/%02x to "
-              "SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x%x/%02x/%02x\n", id, opcode, drv_stat, 
drv_err,
                *sk, *asc, *ascq);
         return;
   }
--- 521,528 ----
         *ascq = 0x04; /*  "auto-reallocation failed" */

    translate_done:
+       DPRINTK(KERN_ERR "ata%u: translated op=0x%02x cmd=0x%02x ATA 
stat/err 0x%02x/%02x to "
+              "SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x%x/%02x/%02x\n", id, opcode, cmd, 
drv_stat, drv_err,
                *sk, *asc, *ascq);
         return;
   }




On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Mark Lord wrote:

> Justin Piszcz wrote:
>> Second patch fails for me.
> ..
>> Should I be using 2.6.16-rcX?
>
> Mmm... that's what I'm using (plus other patches),
> so, yes.. give that a try.  2.6.16 does seem to
> be shaping up to be a nice kernel.
>
> Cheers
>